The Obama Presidency - 2008 & 2012

[Big Fo]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Oooo, can I play?

I support the right of the government and the church to tell someone exactly what they can and can't do to their own body, and I certainly hope that person is OK with that.

The GOP: Believing that the government shouldn't tell you what to do with your money, but can tell you everything about what you can and can't do with your body, since at least 1973.

But they're the party of freedom!

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Big Fo

But they're the party of freedom fries!

fixed

[lordscarlet]

Voting rights bill, including an amendment to repeal DC's post-Heller gun laws, has passed in the Senate 61-37.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Sigh. Let's see how stupid Hatch looks for co-sponsoring when by some magic trick he doesn't get the extra seat he's obviously counting on.

And when the fine feathered folks at SCOTUS are the best chance we've got of avoiding a mistake like this one, well, let's just say I'm not optimistic.

Literally turns my fucking stomach to see this one but it's neither the first time I've felt that way about something coming out of Congress & it won't be the last, it's just the next.

[Big Fo]

Originally Posted by lordscarlet

Voting rights bill, including an amendment to repeal DC's post-Heller gun laws, has passed in the Senate 61-37.

A good day for democracy if it goes through in the end. I wonder if the Democrats will be cheeky enough to try and get DC two senators down the road.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Also tacked on to the DC bill yesterday was another item that's been getting some attention lately. Gotta love the misleading headline on the blurb though.

from Tom Taylor's morning newsletter from radio-info.com
The Senate votes 87-11 against a revived Fairness Doctrine.

South Carolina Republican Jim DeMint wanted to push this issue here at the beginning of the 111th Congress and so he tacked it onto the D.C. voting-rights bill that’s a priority of the Democratic leadership. He was probably as surprised as anyone when it racked up 87 “yes” votes yesterday. Now the bill heads to the House, which will probably also vote to instruct the FCC not to ever resuscitate the Fairness Doctrine. Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky says a new Fairness Doctrine would be “government control over political speech.” No doubt talk radio will consider this a “win” for them – and they’re right. It’s also a win for the NAB, which doesn’t want the government involved in speech-content issues. But the FCC's still mulling over its confused-sounding "Localism" rulemaking. And Congressional Dems signaled through a 57-41 vote yesterday that they're going to push harder for ownership diversity.

[sterlingice]

Bucc, can you sleep well at night now knowing that the fairness doctrine that never had any chance of passing nor should have will never see the light of day?

But what stupid red herring will Rush, O'Reilly, Hannity, et al, have to talk about now?

SI

[Flasch186]

My thoughts on Obama's budget:

I know it isnt perfect BUT since this is the start of a negotiation with the Congress Im hopeful that they will go through it and push back against some of the dumber things I've seen in it.

I AM glad that the initial budget is aspirational and includes a lot of things that have long since been hidden of the balance sheet, so to speak. That being said I am hopeful that the more moderate democrats get to push back against some of the things I disagree with in there although Im only one person so my judgment of whats good or bad can be wrong.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

Bucc, can you sleep well at night now knowing that the fairness doctrine that never had any chance of passing nor should have will never see the light of day?

But what stupid red herring will Rush, O'Reilly, Hannity, et al, have to talk about now?

SI

To be honest, I'm not too sure why you included O'Reilly in that list. O'Reilly for months has been very consistant in saying that he wasn't really interested in even discussing the Fairness doctrine on his show because he said it didn't have a prayer of passing. He'd often hang up on callers that mentioned it because he believed they were just wasting his time.

Rush would use it to stir up the liberals, but he didn't give it any chance of passing either. Anyone who thought that O'Reilly or Rush actually was legitimately concerned about this simply wasn't paying attention.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

I know it isnt perfect BUT since this is the start of a negotiation with the Congress Im hopeful that they will go through it and push back against some of the dumber things I've seen in it.

I sincerely doubt that. There have never been a budget submitted to Congress that wasn't added on to. We have seen their atrocious track record this record and the evidence in just the past months shows an acceleration of adding on dumb things. There is no difference between the federal govt expansion of expenditures and powers during the War on Poverty, War on Drugs, War on Terror and now, the War on Recession. It all looks the same regardless of how you wrap it.

Re: I, of course, do not listened to talk radio but I do pay attention to George Will. He indicated that this would be brought up (I don't think he said it would be passed) and sure enough, within 30 days of the new regime, it was. I can rest easy but there are many more federal govt intrusions to tackle.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Literally turns my fucking stomach to see this one but it's neither the first time I've felt that way about something coming out of Congress & it won't be the last, it's just the next.

Aside from the obvious current political advantages (for Democrats), I guess I still don't understand why there's a problem with giving the people of DC representation. It's always seemed a little ironic that a country founded in a large part on a principle of fair representation did not extend that right to citizens of its capitol district. Now, I know the historical realities that made this the case, but still.... Are people against this solely because it means Democrats pick up seats, or is there another, better, rationale?

Originally Posted by sterlingice

Bucc, can you sleep well at night now knowing that the fairness doctrine that never had any chance of passing nor should have will never see the light of day?

OK, I'm confused. Did this vote mean the Fairness Doctrine is coming back, or it's even more dead and buried than before?

If this was 2002 I'd probably want the Fairness Doctrine back, if only because right-wing demagogues have so much visibility on television. However, it's a different world now, with the wide variety of stuff available on the internet and the fact that the left-wing has been far, far more successful building up communities via the blogosphere. Which has, basically, propelled folks like Olbermann and Maddow back into the spotlight on TV.

It seems to me that arguing to bring back the Fairness Doctrine now would be like arguing over who gets to use the swords when everyone else has moved on to machine guns.

Originally Posted by Flasch186

My thoughts on Obama's budget:

Somewhat tangential, but I continue to be amused by the GOPers trotting out to lambaste the budget. There's no intellectual honesty there. These are the same guys who voted for almost the same amount of money for Iraq and Afghanistan, and now they're complaining about spending money in the United States. Basically, they're un-American. Heh - I've waited 8 years to say that.

And for every bullshit pork project in the budget, there's a similar bullshit expenditure that went into Iraq reconstruction (or simply disappeared once it was offloaded from the plane in Iraq).

Boggles the mind.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Aside from the obvious current political advantages (for Democrats), I guess I still don't understand why there's a problem with giving the people of DC representation.

It's not a state. Period. End of sentence.

Want to give 'em congressional votes, fine, amend the Constitution & have at it.

Did this vote mean the Fairness Doctrine is coming back, or it's even more dead and buried than before?

The intent of the amendment to the bill was to kill it dead. Whether it'll stay dead remains to be seen of course.

These are the same guys who voted for almost the same amount of money for Iraq and Afghanistan, and now they're complaining about spending money in the United States.

I've never been a big supporter of excess spending there outside of what goes toward military operations, outside of the p.r. crowd & a few true believers who bought into the whole silly "spreading democracy" routine I don't think there was any real support for that sort of spending among the GOP voters.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

It's not a state. Period. End of sentence.

Want to give 'em congressional votes, fine, amend the Constitution & have at it.

Ah, OK. I can actually get on board with that. For some reason, though, I think we have a real mental block at 50 states.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I've never been a big supporter of excess spending there outside of what goes toward military operations, outside of the p.r. crowd & a few true believers who bought into the whole silly "spreading democracy" routine I don't think there was any real support for that sort of spending among the GOP voters.

In general I'm not talking about GOP voters, but GOP politicians, though. I can just about give regular GOP voters the benefit of the doubt for having the wool pulled over their eyes about the eventual cost of rebuilding Iraq, but I won't do the same for their politicians. These guys voted and kept voting for billions of dollars to reconstruct Iraq, the Surge, etc... and then immediately turn around and raise a bloody stink about spending the same money on the U.S. Utter hypocrisy for each and every one of them to now claim they're a fiscal conservative simply because there's a Democrat in the White House.

[lordscarlet]

Originally Posted by Big Fo

A good day for democracy if it goes through in the end. I wonder if the Democrats will be cheeky enough to try and get DC two senators down the road.

I don't think they'd do that without a Constitutional amendment, and I'm not even sure if they would do it then. However, I think it would be the right thing to do, personally. We should have the same representation as Wyoming, particularly since Congress is the one that controls our budget.

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

It's not a state. Period. End of sentence.

Want to give 'em congressional votes, fine, amend the Constitution & have at it.

This is far and away the justification that Republicans use. I'm not saying it is an incorrect one (although, plenty of Constitutional scholars would disagree with the argument), but it is what people use. They skirt the issue of how anti-American it is by claiming the Constitution stipulates that residents of the District do not get any representation in Congress. And, as I have spouted off about many times, an amendment is the right and most conclusive thing to do, but there is just absolutely no incentive for states to ratify the amendment. Whether .01% of the population, that will never be residents of their state (well, if they become residents, they don't have the voting problem anymore), have voting rights is just something that is never going to concern state legislatures. Particularly when the majority of their constituents don't even realize that District residents do not have a voting member in Congress.

[lungs]

Next up, admit Puerto Rico as a free state. The more marginalized the slave states become in Congress, the better.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

These guys voted and kept voting for billions of dollars to reconstruct Iraq, the Surge, etc... and then immediately turn around and raise a bloody stink about spending the same money on the U.S.

Off hand, how many pols from either party who voted for any spending bill related to Iraq do you actually believe had the slightest idea how they money would be spent beyond some vague notion that it was related to the war in some way? If you say anything more than about 20% then you have a great deal more confidence in them than I do.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by lordscarlet

but there is just absolutely no incentive for states to ratify the amendment.

Which I maintain is precisely why it shouldn't happen. It should be up to the states collectively to determine whether a change is made.

Let's go in a different direction though, rather than an amendment for changing the voting member issues, how about just putting a statehood amendment up instead? That would solve the problem & surely we can generate more interest in a bigger question like that than in one isolated element. I'll take my chances with that one and if it passes, I'll disagree with it & rail about that outcome but wouldn't have a leg to stand on concerning the voting representation so it becomes a moot point.

[flere-imsaho]

Maybe in 2002 or 2003, Jon, but by 2005, 2006 and 2007 I'd hope they'd have a pretty good idea on what it was being spent, and the amount that was being wasted.

[lordscarlet]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Which I maintain is precisely why it shouldn't happen. It should be up to the states collectively to determine whether a change is made.

So it's OK for the country to disenfranchise a minority?

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Let's go in a different direction though, rather than an amendment for changing the voting member issues, how about just putting a statehood amendment up instead? That would solve the problem & surely we can generate more interest in a bigger question like that than in one isolated element. I'll take my chances with that one and if it passes, I'll disagree with it & rail about that outcome but wouldn't have a leg to stand on concerning the voting representation so it becomes a moot point.

Statehood, however, is entirely different. That, while as an amendment is Constitutional, completely flies in the face of the framers' intent. I don't believe that disenfranchising DC residents was the intent of the framers, but maintaining a federal district under congressional control was certainly their intent. By giving DC residents true members of Congress, we merely have a say regarding federal functions/spending/whatever and gain about .02% power over our own budget, instead of 0%. I think a proposition of statehood would be denied, rather than ignored. I think a question of giving DC residents members of Congress is more likely to just sit in the states without a vote.

I am always quite amazed at how people can justify to themselves that people are 100% American Citizens, paying the same taxes as you, and do not have full representation in Congress. People can make all the jokes they want about crack smoking mayors and inefficient government, but obviously that happens throughout the country -- citizens of the District of Columbia have every right to representation in Congress as the rest of the country.

[JonInMiddleGA]

[quote=flere-imsaho;1955539]Maybe in 2002 or 2003, Jon, but by 2005, 2006 and 2007 I'd hope they'd have a pretty good idea on what it was being spent, and the amount that was being wasted.[/QUOTE

No more wasteful than what we're seeing now IMO. Doesn't make any of the waste much more bearable, but I have about as much confidence in the current things on the table accomplishing anything except the redistribution of wealth as I did on democracy building in Iraq. And I believe you could accurately gauge what I think of that.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by lordscarlet

So it's OK for the country to disenfranchise a minority?

Absolutely, positively, without any doubt in my mind or hesitation in answering the question. Contrary to popular belief, surely the rights of the majority do have at least some value.

Statehood, however, is entirely different. That, while as an amendment is Constitutional, completely flies in the face of the framers' intent.

And so does giving congressional representation to non-states but that sure as hell doesn't seem to be stopping anybody.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Somewhat tangential, but I continue to be amused by the GOPers trotting out to lambaste the budget. There's no intellectual honesty there.

Oh please. The Dems blast deficit spending when the Republicans are in power and then turn around and pass massive spending. Don't pretend anyone in Congress in either party has intellectual honesty on spending and deficits.

Though this is also the reason I like divided government. The opposition will always push back.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

No more wasteful than what we're seeing now IMO. Doesn't make any of the waste much more bearable, but I have about as much confidence in the current things on the table accomplishing anything except the redistribution of wealth as I did on democracy building in Iraq. And I believe you could accurately gauge what I think of that.

Well, sure, but that wasn't my point. Your viewpoint is consistent in a way that Congressional Republicans' are not.

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Oh please. The Dems blast deficit spending when the Republicans are in power and then turn around and pass massive spending. Don't pretend anyone in Congress in either party has intellectual honesty on spending and deficits.

Fair enough, but has the turnaround ever been so stark as the past 2 years? Even as late as early 2008 Congressional Republicans were telling us how we had to plunge even more money into Iraq, damn the deficit spending, but somehow now it's not OK to do the same thing for the U.S.?

[lordscarlet]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Absolutely, positively, without any doubt in my mind or hesitation in answering the question. Contrary to popular belief, surely the rights of the majority do have at least some value.

I hate to be inflammatory, but no wonder everyone* thinks you're nuts. It's OK if people, who have no criminal convictions or other such disqualification, are not afforded the same rights as the rest of the country based solely on the fact that they live in a specific city? Give me a break. The majority doesn't give a shit about how the DC infrastructure is run, but they control the purse strings.

* exaggeration

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

And so does giving congressional representation to non-states but that sure as hell doesn't seem to be stopping anybody.

That is certainly an interpretation -- there are other portions of the Constitution that apply to the "several states" but people are more than happy to apply to the District. You can't have your cake and eat it too, my friend.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by lordscarlet

I hate to be inflammatory, but no wonder everyone* thinks you're nuts.

They're as disenfranchised as residents of Puerto Rico, Guam, the Virgin Islands, and American Samoa ... who have equal or similar claims to residents of DC. But what the hell, why not just let everybody on the planet have a voting Congressional representative. Since statehood obviously doesn't matter, wouldn't want to leave anybody out.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

They're as disenfranchised as residents of Puerto Rico, Guam, the Virgin Islands, and American Samoa ... who have equal or similar claims to residents of DC. But what the hell, why not just let everybody on the planet have a voting Congressional representative. Since statehood obviously doesn't matter, wouldn't want to leave anybody out.

but PR, Guam, VI, and American Samoan residents also do not pay taxes and are not residents of the mainland United States. You're trying to compare apples to oranges to make your point.

[lordscarlet]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

They're as disenfranchised as residents of Puerto Rico, Guam, the Virgin Islands, and American Samoa ... who have equal or similar claims to residents of DC. But what the hell, why not just let everybody on the planet have a voting Congressional representative. Since statehood obviously doesn't matter, wouldn't want to leave anybody out.

They do not have equal or similar claims. Most notably:

1) They are not within the boundaries of the continental Unites States
2) They do no pay federal income taxes (but they do pay social security and FICA)
3) Their budget, etc are not managed by the United States Congress

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

but PR, Guam, VI, and American Samoan residents also do not pay taxes and are not residents of the mainland United States. You're trying to compare apples to oranges to make your point.

Right.

[RainMaker]

I agree with Jon to an extent here. The constitution does state clearly what the rule of law is. I do believe it's wrong though and that it should be immediately ammended to include D.C. There is no reason those people shouldn't have representation.

The feined outrage is amusing though as we all know Republicans wouldn't be saying a word if D.C. was filled with bible-thumping rednecks.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

The feined outrage is amusing though as we all know Republicans wouldn't be saying a word if D.C. was filled with bible-thumping rednecks.

truth

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

The feined outrage is amusing though as we all know Republicans wouldn't be saying a word if D.C. was filled with bible-thumping rednecks.

very true

[lordscarlet]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I agree with Jon to an extent here. The constitution does state clearly what the rule of law is. I do believe it's wrong though and that it should be immediately ammended to include D.C. There is no reason those people shouldn't have representation.

Again, it is arguable as to how clear it is in the Constitution. The interpretation of "the several states" changes based on what part of the Constitution conservatives are looking at.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Fair enough, but has the turnaround ever been so stark as the past 2 years? Even as late as early 2008 Congressional Republicans were telling us how we had to plunge even more money into Iraq, damn the deficit spending, but somehow now it's not OK to do the same thing for the U.S.?

Look at the converse of that statement. Even as late as early 2008, Congressional Democrats were telling us how we shouldn't be plunging even more money into Iraq because it was too expensive, but now spend, spend, spend away on pet projects and pork?

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

As far as his support among the opposition, the unity honeymoon appears to be vanishing very quickly. His support numbers have now dropped 10% in the first month to 59%, mostly due to quickly eroding bipartisan support.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/116077/Ob...irst-Time.aspx


I doubt it will raise 5-10 points. That's a pretty unreasonable expectation. 2-3 points is generally what we'd see, though I'm not sure that even that is attainable given the current economic climate.

IT'S FRIDAY and...

Obama's approval rating is at 67% or 8 points higher than Tuesday's numbers.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by lordscarlet

Again, it is arguable as to how clear it is in the Constitution. The interpretation of "the several states" changes based on what part of the Constitution conservatives are looking at.

Instead of arguing semantics with the constitution, why not just amend it and make it up to date. Clearly our founding fathers didn't foresee this situation.

[lordscarlet]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Instead of arguing semantics with the constitution, why not just amend it and make it up to date. Clearly our founding fathers didn't foresee this situation.

That is what I would like to happen. I will let my congressional representatives know that is what I would like.. oh, wait a minute...

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Look at the converse of that statement. Even as late as early 2008, Congressional Democrats were telling us how we shouldn't be plunging even more money into Iraq because it was too expensive, but now spend, spend, spend away on pet projects and pork?

I'll concede that maybe it's a matter of context. The GOP seems fine with dumping billions of dollars into a foreign endeavor of dubious ROI, even as the home economy tanks, and then does an about face when asked to dump the same money into the U.S. economy, citing a desire to not deficit spend.

The Democrats, on the other hand, increasingly rail about the money being dumped into Iraq on the basis of a) dubious ROI and b) ridiculous deficit spending and then turn around and endorse deficit spending to dump money into the U.S. economy.

I think the key difference is that throughout the Iraq endeavor, Democrats have argued (usually when arguing against the emergency appropriation bills) that said money would be better spend in the United States. Now that they have a Democratic White House, this is what they're doing. The whole deficit spending argument was really a rhetorical blow against a party that's supposed to be full of people who are fiscally conservative or at least fiscally prudent.

When taken in context with the amount of money they fought for, for Iraq reconstruction, the GOP doesn't really have a coherent argument against spending the money on U.S. reconstruction except for "OMG, No More Deficit Spending" and "These Projects are all BS!" I think the hypocrisy is further amplified by these pious mutterings of "we have to be fiscal conservatives now" when none of them seemed to be concerned about fiscal conservatism even a year ago.

I mean let's be honest, the Democratic party as a whole has never claimed to be fiscally conservative. They've just argued that we shouldn't keep spending money on reconstructing Iraq.

[Flasch186]

Hey J, that doesnt matter....Rolling averages do/nt matter today.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Look at the converse of that statement. Even as late as early 2008, Congressional Democrats were telling us how we shouldn't be plunging even more money into Iraq because it was too expensive, but now spend, spend, spend away on pet projects and pork?

In fairness, there's a big difference in spending your money fighting a meaningless war and building up a country that completely hates us, and spending money within the United States on things that create jobs or enhance our country. I'd much rather see our money go into pet projects and pork within our country than the blackhole which is Iraq.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

When taken in context with the amount of money they fought for, for Iraq reconstruction, the GOP doesn't really have a coherent argument against spending the money on U.S. reconstruction except for "OMG, No More Deficit Spending" and "These Projects are all BS!" I think the hypocrisy is further amplified by these pious mutterings of "we have to be fiscal conservatives now" when none of them seemed to be concerned about fiscal conservatism even a year ago.

One can argue that spending on containing terrorism may be considered vital importance. Even if the argument is that Iraq wasn't a problem and was contained (though Republicans can say plenty of Dems didn't think so at the time either), you can easily say that after taking out Saddam Hussein, a power vacuum developed, which was filled with terrorists, and thus more spending had to be pumped in to continue that fight. Or else you just leave replacing Hussein with a terrorist state.

Furthermore, they may strongly believe in a War on Terrorism to protect outside forces from killing Americans and think that in order to better pay for it, we can't be spending like drunken sailors at home. And spending more domestically will imperil spending on fighting terror abroad.

After all, the Dems voted in good numbers to invade Iraq. To decide to not fund and pull out after we've gone in and made a mess would have really, really, really been bad for the country and the world.

I mean let's be honest, the Democratic party as a whole has never claimed to be fiscally conservative. They've just argued that we shouldn't keep spending money on reconstructing Iraq.

Let's be even more honest, the Democratic party implied they were fiscally conservative during the Bush Administration as Clinton "balanced the budget" and "gave us surpluses".

President Clinton, after 1995, basically did govern as a moderate right leaning politician with respect to the economy.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

In fairness, there's a big difference in spending your money fighting a meaningless war and building up a country that completely hates us, and spending money within the United States on things that create jobs or enhance our country. I'd much rather see our money go into pet projects and pork within our country than the blackhole which is Iraq.

Personally, at this moment, I'd rather see the dumb earmarks and pork removed and used to fund our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, who are at this moment (though they may not have in 2003) fighting Al Queda terrorists and and nationalist Iraqis.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Personally, at this moment, I'd rather see the dumb earmarks and pork removed and used to fund our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, who are at this moment (though they may not have in 2003) fighting Al Queda terrorists and and nationalist Iraqis.

Regardless of who they are fighting now, my point was that Iraq was a mistake and it's fair to say that the money that went into that war would have been better spent in our own country, even on pork.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Let's be even more honest, the Democratic party implied they were fiscally conservative during the Bush Administration as Clinton "balanced the budget" and "gave us surpluses".

President Clinton, after 1995, basically did govern as a moderate right leaning politician with respect to the economy.

I don't think Clinton was fiscally conservative. There is a difference in being fiscally conservative and fiscally responsible. Clinton spent money but also made sure it didn't go above what we brought in. I consider someone fiscally conservative if they are for shrinking the government and cutting spending by a lot. I never thought that was Clinton's objective.

As for calling his way of governing "right leaning", when does that stereotype end? The last 3 Republican presidents (20 years worth) have put up massive deficits. Isn't it a bit outdated to be calling fiscally responsible activities an issue of the "right"?

[Buccaneer]

My main issue with the Fairness Doctrine is the blatant un-constitutionality of it - being proposed by those with apparently no regards for the First Amendent (you know, the one that begins "Congress shall make no law..."). Why would anyone elected to office even think that the government should dictate would should be said and how much should be said?

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

My main issue with the Fairness Doctrine is the blatant un-constitutionality of it - being proposed by those with apparently no regards for the First Amendent (you know, the one that begins "Congress shall make no law..."). Why would anyone elected to office even think that the government should dictate would should be said and how much should be said?

I am completely against the fairness doctrine. But those who are against it should also be against the FCC and anti-porn legislation. I guess it bothers me to see those "family" groups lobbying against the Fairness Doctrine but pushing legislation against violent video games or pornography. To me they don't care about free speech, just their own speech.

[Buccaneer]

I agree. Governmental entities, however, do have the right to make and enforce laws against things that are illegal (or to declare things to be illegal). And we, as citizens, do have the power (moreso locally than federal) to overturn such laws, as well as the courts. But in no cases, can they go against the explicit intent of the First Amendment, the most fundamental law of all.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I do believe it's wrong though and that it should be immediately ammended to include D.C.

And if that happens, you'll get no quarrel from me about them being seated. You'll hear plenty from me during the process railing against them being worthy of statehood, but if they get it through the correct process then so be it.

The feined outrage is amusing though as we all know Republicans wouldn't be saying a word if D.C. was filled with bible-thumping rednecks.

Nor would there be a push to seat them currently if they hadn't proven themselves to be determined to elect worthless liberal vermin if given the slightest opportunity.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

And if that happens, you'll get no quarrel from me about them being seated. You'll hear plenty from me during the process railing against them being worthy of statehood, but if they get it through the correct process then so be it.

I think the amendment would give them a special exemption. It wouldn't consider them a state but simply amend so that every state + D.C. gets representation. I don't know if it would warrant a Senator, but I imagine their population is right up there with a few smaller states.

Another solution would be to give the land back to Maryland and Virginia. Gives the voters representation and doesn't add any new people to Congress.

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Nor would there be a push to seat them currently if they hadn't proven themselves to be determined to elect worthless liberal vermin if given the slightest opportunity.

Outside of the childish liberal/conservative rant, the push for representation has been going on for over a century. As the city has grown and been neglected, it's become a bigger issue. Odd to see you push the constitutional argument as many of your comments have shown a disdain for it and America in general.

[Big Fo]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I think the amendment would give them a special exemption. It wouldn't consider them a state but simply amend so that every state + D.C. gets representation. I don't know if it would warrant a Senator, but I imagine their population is right up there with a few smaller states.

Going by population alone DC (~600k) is more deserving of two Senators than Wyoming (50th state by population) and is quite close to Vermont, North Dakota, and Alaska.

fwiw Puerto Rico (~4m) would be the nation's 27th largest state if that ever happened.

South Carolina needs another representative, more people live here than in Louisiana and they have seven reps

Wikipedia - US states by population

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

My main issue with the Fairness Doctrine is the blatant un-constitutionality of it - being proposed by those with apparently no regards for the First Amendent (you know, the one that begins "Congress shall make no law..."). Why would anyone elected to office even think that the government should dictate would should be said and how much should be said?

I'm no fan of the Fairness Doctrine, but you're leaving out the critical component that it would apply only to broadcast outlets due to the public ownership of the airwaves. People could still whatever the hell they wanted, whenever they wanted to, but the airwaves would have to provde equal time.