Quoted:



http://www.campuslp.org/utoledo/files/images/UnitedSocialistStatesOfAmericaFlag.jpg





Obama proves what I've said about liberals for ages. They ONLY believe in free speech insomuch as it encompasses the right to agree with them. Beyond that, they will actively work to shut you up.





And before DULoken or another one of those types says conservatives are the same, you need only look at the vitriol you people have filled every piece of print, television, and film with for the past eight years to see conservatives and moderates are NOT the same. We've stood up for your right to say what you want, but your guys are still two months from taking office and they're already discussing shutting us up, disarming us, shitting on what's left of states' rights, and bringing back involuntary servitude.





Violations of the 1st, 2nd, 10th, and 13th amendments and you're not even in office yet. Fuck liberals.

Quoted:
Is there a link to this?

Quoted:
The Bill of Rights is of no concern to obammy. The next few years are going to be a living hell. We'll just have to ride it out.

Quoted:


We may be "riding it out" in a boxcar, going to a reeducation (concentration) camp.

Quoted:


UNBELIEVER!!!!!!

Quoted:
We'll just have to ride it out.

Quoted:


Link is needed.  Where is this even coming from?  I don't like Obama anymore than you but it's been publicly stated that he opposes it.

Quoted:



Did Obama actually say for himself, since the election, that he supports the "Fairness Doctrine"?

No, the OP just started an inflammatory thread making a claim out of left field.  I'm the one that has to provide a link?

ok http://www.broadcastingcable.com/CA6573406.html

Quoted:


Did Obama actually say for himself, since the election, that he supports the "Fairness Doctrine"?

No, the OP just started an inflammatory thread making a claim out of left field.  I'm the one that has to provide a link?

ok http://www.broadcastingcable.com/CA6573406.html

Quoted:


Link is needed.  Where is this even coming from?  I don't like Obama anymore than you but it's been publicly stated that he opposes it.

Quoted:


Yes, just like he has already publically stated that he's pro-gun.

That whole "I support a permanent AWB, federal ban on CCW, federal one-gun-a-month legislation, etc." bit is just, uh... PAY NO ATTENTION TO THE MAN BEHIND THE CURTAIN!

Quoted:


I know that.  But I can find everything he says about the 2A published on his website.  I honestly don't see why this thread means anything without some news story behind it.  I'm guessing the OP was listening to Art Bell speculating that his show is getting canceled.

Quoted:
It is hilarious that some people still think the constitution actually matters to obama and his stooges.

DEMS GET SET TO MUZZLE THE RIGHT
Comments: 475Read Comments Leave a Comment By BRIAN C. ANDERSON

Last updated: 8:49 am
October 20, 2008
Posted: 4:51 am
October 20, 2008

SHOULD Barack Obama win the presidency and Democrats take full control of Congress, next year will see a real legislative attempt to bring back the Fairness Doctrine - and to diminish conservatives' influence on broadcast radio, the one medium they dominate.

Yes, the Obama campaign said some months back that the candidate doesn't seek to re-impose this regulation, which, until Ronald Reagan's FCC phased it out in the 1980s, required TV and radio broadcasters to give balanced airtime to opposing viewpoints or face steep fines or even loss of license. But most Democrats - including party elders Nancy Pelosi, John Kerry and Al Gore - strongly support the idea of mandating "fairness."

Would a President Obama veto a new Fairness Doctrine if Congress enacted one? It's doubtful.

The Fairness Doctrine was an astonishingly bad idea. It's a too-tempting power for government to abuse. When the doctrine was in effect, both Democratic and Republican administrations regularly used it to harass critics on radio and TV.

Second, a new Fairness Doctrine would drive political talk radio off the dial. If a station ran a big-audience conservative program like, say, Laura Ingraham's, it would also have to run a left-leaning alternative. But liberals don't do well on talk radio, as the failure of Air America and indeed all other liberal efforts in the medium to date show. Stations would likely trim back conservative shows so as to avoid airing unsuccessful liberal ones.

Then there's all the lawyers you'd have to hire to respond to the regulators measuring how much time you devoted to this topic or that. Too much risk and hassle, many radio executives would conclude. Why not switch formats to something less charged - like entertainment or sports coverage?

For those who dismiss this threat to freedom of the airwaves as unlikely, consider how the politics of "fairness" might play out with the public. A Rasmussen poll last summer found that fully 47 percent of respondents backed the idea of requiring radio and television stations to offer "equal amounts of conservative and liberal political commentary," with 39 percent opposed.

Liberals, Rasmussen found, support a Fairness Doctrine by 54 percent to 26 percent, while Republicans and unaffiliated voters were more evenly divided. The language of "fairness" is seductive.

Even with control of Washington and public support, Dems would have a big fight in passing a Fairness Doctrine. Rush Limbaugh & Co. wouldn't sit by idly and let themselves be regulated into silence, making the outcome of any battle uncertain. But Obama and the Democrats also plan other, more subtle regulations that would achieve much the same outcome.

He and most Democrats want to expand broadcasters' public-interest duties. One such measure would be to impose greater "local accountability" on them - requiring stations to carry more local programming whether the public wants it or not. The reform would entail setting up community boards to make their demands known when station licenses come up for renewal. The measure is clearly aimed at national syndicators like Clear Channel that offer conservative shows. It's a Fairness Doctrine by subterfuge.

Obama also wants to relicense stations every two years (not eight, as is the case now), so these monitors would be a constant worry for stations. Finally, the Democrats also want more minority-owned stations and plan to intervene in the radio marketplace to ensure that outcome.

It's worth noting, as Jesse Walker does in the latest Reason magazine, that Trinity Church, the controversial church Obama attended for many years, is heavily involved in the media-reform movement, having sought to restore the Fairness Doctrine, prevent media consolidation and deny licenses to stations that refuse to carry enough children's programming.

Regrettably, media freedom hasn't been made an issue by the McCain campaign, perhaps because the maverick senator is himself no fan of unbridled political speech, as his long support of aggressive campaign-finance regulation underscores. But the threat to free speech is real - and profoundly disturbing.

Brian C. Anderson is editor of City Journal and co-author, with Adam Thierer, of "A Manifesto for Media Freedom," just out from Encounter Books.

Quoted:
Not to interrupt the Obama Bash (Fuck Obama), but the Republicans are no better when it comes to the First Amendment and Free Speech in general.

Quoted:
Not to interrupt the Obama Bash (Fuck Obama), but the Republicans are no better when it comes to the First Amendment and Free Speech in general.

Quoted:

It is hilarious that some people still think the constitution actually matters to obama and his stooges.

Quoted:
It is hilarious that some people still think the constitution actually matters to obama and his stooges.

Quoted:
Not to interrupt the Obama Bash (Fuck Obama), but the Republicans are no better when it comes to the First Amendment and Free Speech in general.

Quoted:
If dissent among other constitutionally guaranteed rights are extinguished and penalized heavily and when the welfare nanny state becomes a reality will their be mass defections among those who claim to love freedom for the sake of security and become good little taxpaying Marxists?

Will they excuse themselves from the words of Patrick Henry and accept their obedient servitude to the omnipotence of the government?

I have a terrible feeling that personal safety and survival for many sunshine patriots will trump conviction and the will to oppose a tryanny,

Quoted:
Here is a link to a post of mine concerning the "Localism" issue fyi:


http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=1&f=5&t=789407

Quoted:



That's one of the very few decisions that needs to addressed on a very personal level, absent of any outside influence and should have been done already, in a time of comfort, not turmoil.

Long before Obamanation came to be, I have made peace with my decisions.  I've said it before on here, but how presumptuous and arrogant of me to believe I have any more to risk than our founding fathers. They weren't just names recorded in history books for the sake of posterity, these were real people with businesses, lands and families and they willingly signed their own death warrant in the name of liberty.

There are very few things in this world that can't be taken from you. Those are the gifts you give to yourself: integrity, character, honor and truth of self.  All other physical property and social/familial connections can be forcibly taken.

Maybe someday soon we will know who has conviction in their beliefs.