Posts tagged ‘conservative’
I want to read something new on our trip this weekend, if I order today I will have it from Amazon before we leave. Gotta love Prime membership.
Seriously. Why can’t people even pretend to get along, or at least be civil?
We are not going to agree on everything. There is nothing wrong with that. The fact that I have different views and opinions from you is great. We are individuals with our own thoughts and opinions. If we all had the same views and opinions we would not be human. Diversity is a good thing.
That even extends into the political arena. I am free to vote for whoever and whatever I like. What I hold to be good and true. Your view may be totally different. We can agree to disagree.
Where has this bitter divisiveness come from? Everyone is attacking each other and then calling foul on the other. Well, you can’t have it both ways. Some of the comments I have been reading around the internet are just hateful – from BOTH parties.
People have been jumping onto the bandwagon to defend their beliefs at the expense of the others. In doing that, when you attack back with hate and bitterness – you are doing exactly what you are complaining about. Talk about defeating your own purpose. I know this happens on both sides. There are things I hear that make me cringe. I hope that no one supports those who seem to be extremist in their reaction.
We all know there are extremists in every group. They exist throughout society in all groups. What has happened to letting the few overshadow the rest? It would appear that the media is helping to perpetuate this stereotypical image through frequent, consistent reminder.
Here is what I don’t get.
People stealing each others signs, replacing them with the opposing view. Why do that? It is their yard, their car, their right to have that in their yard. If you don’t like it – look away. Don’t taunt them or try to engage in a battle of words or will. Simple human decency seems to have flown out the window.
Yes, we all have the right to free speech as guaranteed by the First Ammendment. That is why it is okay for me to even write about what I think without fear. Everyone is guaranteed that.
- Freedom of speech
- Freedom of Religion
- Freedom of the Press
- Right to gather/assemble (peacefully)
- Right to petition
It seems that in the name of “freedom of speech” people have been carrying things a bit too far. You don’t have the right to slander or libel, attack someone, etc.
My tips for how to behave during an election season:
* Don’t park your car beside someones home, write something inflammatory about them on it, and then leave it there for all to see for days.
* Don’t attack at a campaign motorcade.
* Don’t list someones baby on ebay.
* Don’t threaten people physicially for having views other than yours.
Two supporters of Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama found handwritten death threats in their mailboxes Thursday and reported them to Villa Park police. A 74-year-old woman and a 46-year-old man with Obama signs in their front yards near the 600 block of South Villa Avenue received similar letters that had a Villa Park Village Hall return address. “Get the Obama signs off your property–now,” the letter reads. “Failure to obey this order will result in the immediate death of all family members.” Both residents said they will not remove their signs, though the man, who had voted Republican for 25 years before switching parties this year, said his wife is worried about letting their 7-year-old son play alone outside.
* Don’t steal people’s yard signs and replace them with your own. -I am pretty sure theft is not covered by free speech.
As a conservative and Republican I am not out to get you. I do not slander you, I do not call you names for your views and I would appreciate the respect that I show to you.
Even if you don’t like my views, you don’t get to insult or call me names. I am not doing that to you. You have the chance to be the bigger person.
Ok. There are some big names that we know are Republicans. The nice Baldwin, the Governator. But there have to be a few more. And don’t you just wonder if some of the others are closet Republicans anyway? I mean these are the people with most of the money in our country.
- Dan Aykroyd, actor
- Stephen Baldwin, actor
- Pat Boone, singer
- Wilford Brimley, actor
- Jerry Bruckheimer, producer
- James Caan, actor
- Dean Cain, actor
- Jon Cryer, actor
- Daddy Yankee (Ramon Ayala), Latin recording artist
- Robert Davi, actor
- Robert Duvall, actor
- Erik Estrada, actor
- Joe Eszterhas, screenwriter
- Lou Ferrigno, actor and bodybuilder
- Joe Flanigan, actor
- Kelsey Grammer, actor
- Angie Harmon, actress
- Elisabeth Hasselbeck, co-host of The View
- Patricia Heaton, actress
- Lorenzo Lamas, actor
- Gerald McRaney, actor
- Dennis Miller, comedian
- Heidi Montag, Hollywood figure
- Craig T. Nelson, actor
- Gail O’Grady, actress
- John Ondrasik, singer
- John Rich, musician
- Joan Rivers, comedienne
- Shauna Sand, actress
- Tom Selleck, actor
- Gary Sinise, actor
- Kevin Sorbo, actor
- Sylvester Stallone, actor
- Connie Stevens, actress
- Rip Torn, actor
- Janine Turner, actress and author
- Dick Van Patten, actor
- Jon Voight, actor
- James Woods, actor
- Troy Aikman, former Dallas Cowboys quarterback
- Mario Andretti, former racecar driver
- Bill Davidson, owner of the Detroit Pistons
- John Elway, Hall of Fame Denver Broncos quarterback
- Joe Gibbs, former Washington Redskins head coach
- Roger Goodell, NFL Commissioner
- Mike Helton, Nascar President
- Ken Kennedy, WWE wrestler
- Don King, boxing promoter
- Robert Kraft, New England Patriots owner
- Chuck Liddell, MMA fighter
- Art Modell, Former Owner of the Browns and Ravens
- Jack Nicklaus, Golf Champion
- Arnold Palmer, former PGA player
- Richard Petty, 7-time NASCAR champion
- Brady Quinn, Cleveland Browns backup quarterback
- Dan Reeves, Former NFL Coach
- Rhino, TNA wrestler
- Nolan Ryan, Hall of Fame pitcher
- Curt Schilling, Boston Red Sox pitcher
- Jason Sehorn, retired New York Giants cornerback
- Roger Staubach, Hall of Fame Dallas Cowboys quarterback
- George Steinbrenner, Owner of the New York Yankees
- Joe Thomas, left tackle for the Cleveland Browns
- John T. Chambers, CEO of Cisco Systems
- Carly Fiorina, former CEO of Hewlett-Packard
- Lynn Forester de Rothschild CEO of E.L. Rothschild, Former Hillary Clinton Supporter and Democratic National Committee Platform Committee Member
- Steve Forbes,magazine publisher, former GOP presidential candidate (1996, 2000)
- Charles R. Schwab, investor and founder of brokerage firm Charles Schwab Corporation
- Frederick W. Smith, founder and CEO of FedEx Corporation
- Donald Trump, Chairman and CEO of the Trump Organization
- Meg Whitman, former CEO of eBay
- Ben Stein, author and former gameshow host
- Heather Locklear star of Melrose Place and Spin City
- Drew Carey, host of The Price is Right
- Kurt Russell, film actor
- Ted Nugent, rock star
- John Stossel, host of ABC’s 20/20
- Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R-CA)
Taken from these sources. If you know of any others let me know!
Until yesterday I had never even heard of the Fairness Doctrine. Then in two separate instances yesterday I heard mention of it, so that must mean I should look into it and see what it is and then see if it is good or bad.
So after hearing mention of it twice I decided to look it up. The doctrine was originally implemented to try and make sure that stations were giving opposing views on topics. They did not want stations/channels to impose singular views. That sounds almost reasonable. But is it next to impossible to enforce. Who decides what is balanced?
It is curious to note that when this was put in place there were far less options of what to watch or listen too. As well, the Republicans are against this legislation. It went out during the Reagan administration and they have fought to keep it as such. The Democrats are pushing to have it brought back, Pelosi is a strong supporter. The funny part here is by large the media leans far to the liberal Democrat side so why on earth do they even care? They are concerned about the success of conservative talk radio – Rush type people. I would venture to say the left has far more media outlets than the right so why can’t they just let it be. It does violate free speech and first ammendment rights. AND would all the other channels give a balanced view of the conservative? I doubt that.
McCain does not support bringing this doctrine back, he has actually worked to enact legislation to keep it from returning. Obama does claim to oppose a reinstatement of the “Fairness Doctrine.” But more recently, a campaign surrogate told a C-SPAN TV audience Obama had not taken a position on the doctrine. In addition, a source in the office of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) told B&C in July that he could not rule out a push from House Democrats to bring it back, either in this Congress or the next. (broadcasting cable)
And this from the New York Post:
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.
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?
The FCC discarded the rule because, contrary to its purpose, it failed to encourage the discussion of more controversial issues. There were also concerns that it was in violation of First Amendment free speech principles
So here is what the Fairness Doctrine states: (from wikipedia)
The Fairness Doctrine was a policy of the U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) that required the holders of broadcast licenses both to present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was (in the FCC’s view) honest, equitable, and balanced. The United States Supreme Court has upheld the Commission’s general right to enforce such a policy where channels are limited, but the courts have generally not considered that the FCC is obliged to do so. The FCC has since withdrawn the Fairness Doctrine, prompting some to urge its reintroduction through either Commission policy or Congressional legislation.
It was introduced in the U.S. in 1949 (Report on Editorializing by Broadcast Licensees, 13 F.C.C. 1246 ). The doctrine remained a matter of general policy, and was applied on a case-by-case basis until 1967, when certain provisions of the doctrine were incorporated into FCC regulations. It did not require equal time for opposing views, but required that contrasting viewpoints be presented. The Fairness Doctrine had two basic elements: It required broadcasters to devote some of their airtime to discussing controversial matters of public interest, and to air contrasting views regarding those matters. Stations were given wide latitude as to how to provide contrasting views: It could be done through news segments, public affairs shows or editorials.
Under FCC Chairman Mark S. Fowler, a communications attorney who had served on Ronald Reagan‘s presidential campaign staff in 1976 and 1980, the commission began to repeal parts of the Fairness Doctrine, announcing in 1985 that the doctrine hurt the public interest and violated the First Amendment.
In one landmark case, the FCC argued that teletext was a new technology that created soaring demand for a limited resource, and thus could be exempt from the Fairness Doctrine. The Telecommunications Research and Action Center (TRAC) and Media Access Project (MAP) argued that teletext transmissions should be regulated like any other airwave technology, hence the Fairness Doctrine was applicable (and must be enforced by the FCC).
In 1986, Judges Robert Bork and Antonin Scalia of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit concluded that the Fairness Doctrine did apply to teletext but that the FCC was not required to apply it. In a 1987 case, Meredith Corp. v. FCC, two other judges on the same court declared that Congress did not mandate the doctrine and the FCC did not have to continue to enforce it.
In August 1987, the FCC abolished the doctrine by a 4-0 vote, in the Syracuse Peace Council decision, which was upheld by the Appeals Court for the D.C. Circuit in February 1989. The FCC stated, “the intrusion by government into the content of programming occasioned by the enforcement of [the Fairness Doctrine] restricts the journalistic freedom of broadcasters … [and] actually inhibits the presentation of controversial issues of public importance to the detriment of the public and the degradation of the editorial prerogative of broadcast journalists,” and suggested that, due to the many media voices in the marketplace, the doctrine be deemed unconstitutional.
It could really change things if brought back. I like the comparison I read that said requiring balance would be like making a country station play Toby Keith and then play Kanye West. They just don’t go together. You can find what you want to listen to.
So we are setting this blog up to discuss some issues on the forefront at the moment, as well as a few that don’t even seem to touch the radar. While admittedly this is going to be coming from a very conservative view point there are so many facets and variables to each policy and topic that there are boundless amounts of disagreements and arguments for and against each one. In reading through other blogs and listening to many pundits what we have come to determine is this:
The only thing we can agree on is to disagree.
The issue is not if one group is right or wrong, to try and debate as such generally proves useless and pointless. The people most often engaged in such debates are committed to their ideologies and beliefs and are unlikely to be swayed through commentary. They know the talking points and they know how to back up what they believe. There is a reason the independent vote is so important, because they are the only people that you are really likely to sway to your side. There have been rampant and flagrant slams to people on each side of the debate. Somewhere along the way in trying to be tolerant and respectful of others beliefs that has taken a shift to only be tolerant of people who believe what you believe. If you post a link to an article supporting your viewpoints (providing it is from a verifiable source – not somewhere like the daily kos). while the views in the article may not mesh with my ideologies we should not be attacking your personally because you have a belief. Does that mean we agree and think you are right? Most likely not. What has happened to respectful disagreement? You will not be changing anyones mind by attacking them personally. Back up what you say with facts, facts from a trusted source (not something you heard third hand), find it in print and then read it for yourself.
Stop drinking the Kool-Aid and form your own opinions. It has become apparent that peoples views on social policy and their values and morals shape their politics. These two topics are ones that are going to be addressed here soon.
We welcome respectful and engaging debate and discussion. Please join in and participate, but keep it clean and be willing to agree to disagree. We will leave comments unmoderated for as long as people are willing to cooperate.
As well, we are looking for guest bloggers to submit articles to be posted. We welcome providing a platform for other women to share their opinions in an intelligent manner. Please shoot us an email if you are interested!