Well, at least there isn't any argument about this administration wanting to trample on the 2nd, 9th and 10th amendment rights.

I don't trust WorldNetDaily, since they're wrong the vast majority of the time (any 'news' organization that devotes so much time to Obama's birth certificate loses all it's credibility in my eyes). Either way, the top guy is a nominee and not part of the administration and the FCC guy, as far as I know hasn't done anything concrete or tangible toward reinstating the Fairness Doctrine. Saying you support it is much different then actively trying to reinstate it.

__________________
“If you want to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first create the universe.” - Carl Sagan

Remember to submit your nominations for the U.S. Politics Online Alternative Awards!

Every administration has a desire to 'trample' on rights that they see fit, this one isn't much different. Although, as I've mentioned, I've yet to see any concrete efforts by this admin to 'trample' on the 2nd amendment or any more of an effort to trample on the other two that previous administrations have.

__________________
“If you want to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first create the universe.” - Carl Sagan

Remember to submit your nominations for the U.S. Politics Online Alternative Awards!

Oh cmon, you know Obama would cream his pants if he could get enough support to ban guns (so would half of the Democratic party).


edit: Why do we feel the need to lie about the obvious? Why can't we agree on even this when it's the obvious truth?

Partial retraction. Sunstien withdrew his reccomendation for a net fairness doctrine two years ago as an unenforceable regulatory nightmare.

And you are correct, they've only said they support it, and that doesn't mean they're going to reinstate it. It does give reason to watch them more closely.

__________________

He's come to save the day!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kVFdAJRVm94

No... they're smart enough to know that will never work. Look up 'garage gun' and you'll understand why. They're supposedly a big problem in china. It isn't worth the political capital it would cost. I'm all for the Second Ammendment, but if it were ever repealed you would alienate a lot of voters and wind up with less strict controls on guns anyway. The congressional progressives aren't that stupid, they just use it to needle people who don't understand what they're doing.

Besides, the path to power in the US isn't threat of violence, it's control of information.

__________________

He's come to save the day!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kVFdAJRVm94

Um, no, I don't know that. There's absolutely zero evidence whatsoever that Obama wants to ban guns.
Err..because it's not? Unless you have some sort of mind reading capabilities.

__________________
“If you want to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first create the universe.” - Carl Sagan

Remember to submit your nominations for the U.S. Politics Online Alternative Awards!

I would agree with this. The idea that Obama or dems are trying to 'ban guns' is just political fear mongering. It would be absolute political suicide to even pretend to consider such a thing. I'm pro-gun myself and would be 100% and utterly against any more attempts to limit access to guns, so I'm certainly not sticking my head in the sand on this one.

__________________
“If you want to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first create the universe.” - Carl Sagan

Remember to submit your nominations for the U.S. Politics Online Alternative Awards!

Hmm.. He vocally supported the handgun ban in D.C. That's hardly zero evidence.

You don't need mind reading capabilities to see that if these people say they support "gun ownership" they support people being able to shoot an air rifle loaded with bullshit.

You're pro gun but I bet your list of firearms is significantly shorter than mine of what "guns" we "should" be "allowed" to "own", right?


edit: Obama also supports serial numbers for ammo, a ridiculous tax on ammo, etc. They say they support it, but want to make it unaffordable.

Quite a different situation than supporting a nationwide ban on guns. George Bush oversaw the disarming of New Orleans after Katrina, but I'd hardly say George Bush was out to ban guns.
Who are "these people"?
Which would show that you don't really read many of my posts, I guess. Or maybe it illustrates a tendency to jump to unfounded conclusions based on ridiculous political stereotypes.

I'd personally have no issue with the right for people to own any and all firearms or other weapons under the sun. If they misuse or abuse the weapons, throw the book at them. If not, more power to them.

__________________
“If you want to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first create the universe.” - Carl Sagan

Remember to submit your nominations for the U.S. Politics Online Alternative Awards!

It's the increment step, you take small steps (like mentioned above) because your end goal is to ban them. This isn't a mystery.


"These People" are the anti-gun left (Obama's administration is made up of all of these nutjobs).

Also, I believe Anita Dunn has vocalized support for the fairness doctrine as well.

if you say so.....


for the life of ,me I don't know what country you're living in right now...and how you interpret politics...the gop is far right and the dems in the name of pelosi and reid are centrists, or that is moving to the center? In what Universe?


Oh and the brain trust whom ran centrist dems in purple districts/states , ala the blue dogs in 2005 was....wait for it...the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee chairman....taaa daaaa Rahm Emanuel.

But now thats coming back to bite him in the ass because these DEMS are forcing you to make any moves, which your far left comm. heads are resisting to the center, but you aint there yet, so look to your own house amigo.


Oh and Pelois statements as to they were engaged in in NY 23 and the rest NJ and Virginia don’t mean much just told every blue dog out there they are screwed, she either completely off the rails or in a state of denial so strong, either way it doesn’t matter, she has just told them they are on their own as she doesn’t even recognize the trouble they are going to be in, because imho she doesn’t give a crap. This woman is a fruitcake, plain and simple.

__________________

"The captain has turned off the `No Dubbing' sign. You are free to speak any language you choose."

No, we don't need mind-reading ability for that, but apparently you do.

Imperator, provide evidence to me that the GOP doesn't cater to Rush's position, and maybe you'll have a point. Putting a "rolleyes" doesn't really make a very convincing argument when I can provide SEVERAL examples of republicans figuratively licking Rush's boots after having dared to spurn him.

Here's how the dems are right of center, since maybe you haven't been paying attention for the past 10 months:

1) They have the majority, a fillibuster-proof majority. They could literally pass anything.
2) Instead of passing what the left wants, a SINGLE PAYER healthcare insurance system, they compromise with the right.
3) They come up with the public option as a compromise.
4) The right says "NO".
5) They come up with allowing states to come up with their own public option if they want (Kucinich's amendment).
6) The right says "NO" (although it did get enough votes to pass - a couple of republicans voted for it).
7) They strip that amendment out
8) They take any and all forms of the public option off the table.
9) Now they're pushing for a bill that only fines people if you don't have insurance and yet doesn't do squat for anyone that isn't part owner or executive in a health-insurance company.

How is getting to step 9 not legislating from the right of center? They gave up the only truly left-wing position which is single payer. The CENTER-Left position was a public option or even a state-opted public option as a CENTER-right position. They stripped that out and all forms of a public option, so now they're gunning for a mandatory medical insurance solution which is nothing more than caving to corporate greed (a far-right position).

Sorry, if you can't see how the Dems have basically screwed things up so badly that they're governing like last-years republicans, I don't know what to tell you.