Well, I was agreeing with you: I recognised your sarcasm, and responded in a similar vein. Quoting someone does not mean you are disagreeing with them. (Even in this case, when we were rhetorically both saying something that – at a literal level – we were clearly disagreeing with, to make an opposite point).
And now my brain hurts, and I’ll have to sooth it with a glass of wine or two.
oh. My bad. Now I feel silly…
This has got to be the stupidest person to ever run for high office. If she really thinks she’ll have a shot at the Repub nom in 2012, she’s delusional. She’ll be laughed off that stage, utterly destroyed by her competition within her own party. Once they turn on her, too, instead of their fake support this time because they want to win at all costs, it’ll be all over for her. I simply cannot wait until she slinks back into obscurity.
Don’t worry: it’s Friday, and Tuesday’s just around the corner; and at the end of Tuesday the nightmare will be all over, with the candidate who’s actually taught constitutional law, and presumably understands a little about the Bill of Rights, having a comfortable majority, and Sarah Palin back to Mooseville.
The stupid… it burns, it burrrrrrnnnnssss usssss…
Don’t be too sure about that; you never know what the Pubbies might do.
By Palin’s bizarro-universe “logic,” her criticisms of Obama’s personal associations are a violation of Obama’s right to freedom of assembly.
Well, her position is one of abject stupidity. So somebody should know better, but don’t count on that somebody being Sarah Palin.
They have something like that.
It’s called myspace, but Palin can’t have one because she couldn’t even handle a yahoo account.
She wishes.
Seriously, though, free speech relies upon the willingness of the press to call the government on its bullshit–indeed, that’s the very idea of free speech as a building block of democracy, something that has been sorely missing over the last eight years.
You would be opposed to the reinstatement of regulations on monopoly media control? ISTM that the current state, in which Clear Channel ideologically and financially controls just about everything you hear on the radio, is not at all beneficial to the marketplace of ideas. This seems to be one of those instances where limited government interference (which, remember, was the status quo before the Bush FCC) can actually make us more free.
That’s one of many problems with the current religious right: they wave the banner of “freedom” (of speech, religion, etc.) to argue for their own privileged place in society and the denial of same to others. Hence the absurd argument that legal same-sex marriage infringes on the fundies’ right to freedom of religion. They want their religion to be the only one we can practice freely. When a religion like Buddhism supports SSM, suddenly freedom isn’t such a great idea anymore.
She seems to believe that Constitutional rights are fluid concepts whose main purpose are to protect the government from scrutiny. I ask you, Reaganites: Is this not the expansion of government’s power over the people? I ask you, McCain/Palin voters: Is this not an inherently dangerous concept to bring into the Office of the Vice President?
I admire Bricker’s fairness in this and some other threads, but he brought it upon himself by pulling our collective chain with the whole bitterly ironic “I might vote for Obama, no wait, I won’t, because he doesn’t do enough to silence his fans who say mean things about Republicans sometimes” thing. As far as I’m concerned, Bricker is fair game. Remember, some people have been banned for pulling our collective chain (cf SqrlCub).
Okay, but as **Contrapuntal **pointed out, **Bricker **was called out in the OP for something he hadn’t said, but might say. And interestingly, when **Bricker **posted, he posted the exact opposite of what he was accused of planning on posting. He *agreed *with the premise of the OP. Who, precisely, is the partisan hack in this picture?
I mean, if the libs on the board want to drive the conservative posters away and turn this place into a complete echo chamber, there’s nothing I can do to stop them. But the place will be much the poorer for their absence.
I for one still respect Bricker’s ability to communicate his understanding of the law, even if I don’t happen to like the law in question.
And as I pointed out, he deserves every bit of it and then some.
The OP. That does not change the fact that Bricker deserves to be dragged in the mud in every political thread until the SDMB collapses or he leaves, whichever comes first.
Oh, come off it with your paranoid bullshit. Taking a potshot at Bricker is not going to make every conservative poster on this Board up and leave.
Why? You’ll have nobody to argue with.
If you want to take shots at him (or anyone else), take shots at stuff he’s said, not stuff he might say. Otherwise, you’re being much more of a dick than you perceive him to be.
That’s one of the most absurd non sequiturs I’ve seen in a long time. You’re going to have to do a lot more than just make shit up if you want to convince me that I’m going to have the consensus opinion on this board any time soon, and especially if you want me to connect that absurd notion to criticism of Bricker.
For one thing, I’m about 98% sure I have never taken a shot at Bricker solely for being a Republican shill. What I did do was to argue that Bricker deserves the mild potshot he got in the OP, and then some, for pulling our collective chain, which in the past has been a bannable offense for less respected posters.
Glad to see somebody else brought up this point: http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=10384982&postcount=4
Don’t forget the ACORN cul-de-sac.
First, this is running far afield of the original context. AFAIK, nothing we’ve been discussing thus far touched on monopolies or monopolistic practices at all. But hell, I’m game: Clear Channel should be subject to all of the normal monopoly rules, just like Standard Oil and Microsoft and so on, but enforcing special rules against it would be counterproductive. Instead of one Clear Channel we’d have a half-dozen Near Channels with identical content and identical strangleholds on their respective domains. CC does what it does because that’s what sells. Changing the rules will not make people virtuous.
Treating CC like Ma Bell is the wrong way to do it. I want the FCC to give the go-ahead for a lot more micropower FM and AM, and restrict who can own those stations so they aren’t all just rebroadcasting the same satellite feed. CC can have the big national market it wants as long as local options are open to every locality that wants its own radio stations.
(Don’t worry too much about how people will be able to broadcast. The hobbyists already have GNU Radio and only need a way to use it without getting jailed.)
The marketplace of ideas isn’t on the radio in this country and it isn’t going to be on the radio again. Anyone who wants to participate in the marketplace of ideas can walk down to their local library and get on the Internet, where the FCC has absolutely no power.
It would be less limited with more micropower stations, at least in regions that value radio in the first place. The regions that don’t aren’t going to start because some bureaucrats changed a few rules.
How much attention or some? The fairness doctrine required that opposing viewpoints be given some time and air, not equal. As a practical matter it made journalists in broadcast TV try to do it in the story. The quality of TV journalism has declined precipitously since the end of the fairness doctrine. It might be a major cause. (Then again, it might have nothing to do with it.) If people wanted unfettered speech, they could always and still by a press, or put up a blog, which is unregulated except by obscenity laws including laws against child pornography. Those are interferences with property that I think the republic can endure with.
The Pruneyard doctrine has been mentioned. It works just fine in California, and despite criticism from the lesser states, Pruneyard is firmly ensconced in California law and even the Conservatives here now back it, knowing that the shoe is now on the other foot and has been in California for at least 10 years.
I’ll bite. I had no idea what ‘Pruneyard’ was, but …no.
If I only seek to have them evicted, then there is no FA issue. It’s only if I succeed in having them evicted that a FA argument could made.
Or am I missing something?
[sub]don’t hurt me 
[/sub]
Oh, come on, people! Give her a break! It’s not like she majored in Journalism or something, right?