idrankwhat 0 #151 January 28, 2010 Quote If you do not like the decision, well the answer to wrong headed speech is more speech. Let the ideas clash in the marketplace. Which is highly unlikely when the marketplace is unregulated to the level that monopolies are allowed to flourish. An unchecked free market is dangerous. Are the market force purists here in America willing to allow another country to win? Just curious. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Southern_Man 0 #152 January 28, 2010 QuoteQuote If you do not like the decision, well the answer to wrong headed speech is more speech. Let the ideas clash in the marketplace. Which is highly unlikely when the marketplace is unregulated to the level that monopolies are allowed to flourish. An unchecked free market is dangerous. Are the market force purists here in America willing to allow another country to win? Just curious. Honestly I'm not sure what you are talking about? Do you really think the marketplace of ideas is in danger of being monopolized? Seems there are plenty of ideas out there and plenty of different people willing to fund them."What if there were no hypothetical questions?" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
idrankwhat 0 #153 January 28, 2010 Quote Honestly I'm not sure what you are talking about? Do you really think the marketplace of ideas is in danger of being monopolized? Seems there are plenty of ideas out there and plenty of different people willing to fund them. Plenty of ideas? Yes. Plenty of well funded people interested in financing different ideas? No. Not unless they are forced to. Newton's first law applies. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GeorgiaDon 380 #154 January 28, 2010 Thanks for the link. If you read it closely you would see that it completely supports everything that I said. You will recall that the discussion concerned the following amendment to the Constitution: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." From the link you provided: 1st Amendment: The Court held in Bridges that“freedom of speech and of press is accorded aliens residing in this country. 4th Amendment: Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures extends to non-citizens in the United States. 5th Amendment: Justice Harold Burton, delivering the Court’s eight-to-one decision in Kwong Hai Chew v. Colding stated that it is “well established that if an alien is a lawful permanent resident of the United States and remains physically present there, he is a person within the protection of the Fifth Amendment.” Furthermore, “he may not be deprived of his life, liberty or property without due process of law.” So non-citizens are, according to the Supreme Court, entitled to freedom of speech (1st), protection against unreasonable searches and seizures (4th), and due process of law (5th), exactly as I said. The article did not discuss other provisions of the Bill of Rights, but they are also not relevant to the Amendment we were discussing. At least some provisions, such as the 2nd amendment, do not apply to non-citizens, but I didn't claim that they did. Don_____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Southern_Man 0 #155 January 28, 2010 QuoteQuote Honestly I'm not sure what you are talking about? Do you really think the marketplace of ideas is in danger of being monopolized? Seems there are plenty of ideas out there and plenty of different people willing to fund them. Plenty of ideas? Yes. Plenty of well funded people interested in financing different ideas? No. Not unless they are forced to. Newton's first law applies. If your ideas can't garner funding, maybe they aren't very attractive ideas?"What if there were no hypothetical questions?" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,148 #156 January 28, 2010 Quote Cant comprehend?You must have taken the Evilyn Woodhead sped redin course----------------------------------- Your meter is always pegged as it is broken to the left From the link YOU provided: "But once an alien lawfully enters and resides in this country he becomes invested with the rights guaranteed by the Constitution to all people within our borders. Such rights include those protected by the First and the Fifth Amendments and by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. None of these provisions acknowledges any distinction between citizens and resident aliens. They extend their inalienable privileges to all “persons” and guard against any encroachment on those rights by federal or state authority." That would include Miranda rights. So there.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #157 January 28, 2010 QuoteQuotePeople vote with their dollars. Corporations vote with their dollars. People only get to vote with their ballots. Bull. Look at the MA Senate race - Brown had a HUGE infusion of cash from private donors in the last couple weeks before the election.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
idrankwhat 0 #158 January 28, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuotePeople vote with their dollars. Corporations vote with their dollars. People only get to vote with their ballots. Bull. Look at the MA Senate race - Brown had a HUGE infusion of cash from private donors in the last couple weeks before the election. Do you think that a certain mega-corp owed "news" network might have had significant influence in recruiting those dollars? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
idrankwhat 0 #159 January 28, 2010 Quote If your ideas can't garner funding, maybe they aren't very attractive ideas? Or maybe they simply can't compete with a monopoly. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #160 January 28, 2010 QuoteOh WAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHH QUACK QUACK QUACK It also goes to show your powers of observation suck. You are more concerned with throwing your insults than actually knowing what is going on, or participating in any real discussions.... This last post of yours just supports that AGAIN, and AGAIN."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #161 January 28, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuotePeople vote with their dollars. Corporations vote with their dollars. People only get to vote with their ballots. Bull. Look at the MA Senate race - Brown had a HUGE infusion of cash from private donors in the last couple weeks before the election. Do you think that a certain mega-corp owed "news" network might have had significant influence in recruiting those dollars? No more than 4-5 OTHER mega-corp owned 'news' networks had in 2008 for Obama.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #162 January 28, 2010 QuoteQuoteOh WAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHH QUACK QUACK QUACK It also goes to show your powers of observation suck. You are more concerned with throwing your insults than actually knowing what is going on, or participating in any real discussions.... This last post of yours just supports that AGAIN, and AGAIN. DUUUUUDE.. you need a trip to Wisconsin for a refer truck full of cheese.... for this level of wineing Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
idrankwhat 0 #163 January 28, 2010 QuoteQuote Do you think that a certain mega-corp owed "news" network might have had significant influence in recruiting those dollars? No more than 4-5 OTHER mega-corp owned 'news' networks had in 2008 for Obama. I'm sorry but I can't argue the immeasurable. But I can ask you your opinion as to why, if those 4-5 other networks are supposedly in the tank for the libs then why didn't they host the fund raising efforts for Coakley that FOX did for Brown? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #164 January 28, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuote Do you think that a certain mega-corp owed "news" network might have had significant influence in recruiting those dollars? No more than 4-5 OTHER mega-corp owned 'news' networks had in 2008 for Obama. I'm sorry but I can't argue the immeasurable. But I can ask you your opinion as to why, if those 4-5 other networks are supposedly in the tank for the libs then why didn't they host the fund raising efforts for Coakley that FOX did for Brown? I was unaware of Fox hosting a fundraiser for Brown - got a link to the show?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Southern_Man 0 #165 January 28, 2010 QuoteQuote If your ideas can't garner funding, maybe they aren't very attractive ideas? Or maybe they simply can't compete with a monopoly. You keep going back to this monopoly idea. Who had a monopoly on ideas? I look at the political landscape and see a huge host of different advocacy organizations who are advocating different positions. Some of those positions are diametrically oppossed to each other. You would really want to shut down the opportunity for people to come together voluntarily and pool their money to speak for gun control or against gun control? For abortion or against abortion? Seems like people have ample opportunities to fund speech on a wide variety of issues. I just don't see that we should be limiting speech."What if there were no hypothetical questions?" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
idrankwhat 0 #166 January 28, 2010 Quote I was unaware of Fox hosting a fundraiser for Brown - got a link to the show? Well, admittedly, they didn't have Jerry Lewis host a show for him. Attached is a good screen grab. You can check the mediamatters link for the specifics. The multiple appearances by Brown on their various programs is one thing, not that big a deal. Just predictable. The fund raising by Morris on Hannity's show (with Hannity agreeing that this would be a big win for "us") is pretty lousy. Fox and Friends' beating up on Coakley is typical stuff. Beck's fear mongering about election stealing is pretty f'd up. The FOX lineup is pretty much a bunch of political hack shows with a little "news" thrown in there.........somewhere. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #167 January 28, 2010 QuoteQuote I was unaware of Fox hosting a fundraiser for Brown - got a link to the show? Well, admittedly, they didn't have Jerry Lewis host a show for him. Attached is a good screen grab. You can check the mediamatters link for the specifics. The multiple appearances by Brown on their various programs is one thing, not that big a deal. Just predictable. The fund raising by Morris on Hannity's show (with Hannity agreeing that this would be a big win for "us") is pretty lousy. Fox and Friends' beating up on Coakley is typical stuff. Beck's fear mongering about election stealing is pretty f'd up. The FOX lineup is pretty much a bunch of political hack shows with a little "news" thrown in there.........somewhere. So, being mentioned on the network is 'fundraising', now? Wanna bet that I could find equal mention and interviews of Coakley on the other networks? As for the shows...guess it depends on what 'political hacks' you agree with. MSNBC: Chris Matthews - 5pm Ed Schultz - 6pm Chris Matthews - 7pm Keith Olbermann - 8pm Rachel Maddow - 9pm CNN : Wolf Blitzer - 4pm Lou Dobbs - 7pm Campbell Brown - 8pm Larry King - 9pm Anderson Cooper - 10pm Fox: Neil Cavuto - 4pm Glen Beck - 5pm Special Report - 6pm FOX Report - 7pm O'Reilly - 8pm Hannity - 9pm Greta Van Susteren - 10pmMike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
idrankwhat 0 #168 January 28, 2010 Quote So, being mentioned on the network is 'fundraising', now? No, but saying "come to my site and donate so we can get Brown elected and Obama will never have another victory again.....(paraphrased)" could be called "fund raising". Putting up pictures that imply financial prosperity for you if Brown gets elected and deliberately hacking up Coakley's statements, while not necessarily "fundraising" could certainly be considered "stumping". SO, ok. You got me. They were fund raising and stumping for Brown. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #169 January 28, 2010 QuoteDUUUUUDE.. you need a trip to Wisconsin for a refer truck full of cheese.... for this level of wineing It also goes to show your powers of observation suck. You are more concerned with throwing your insults than actually knowing what is going on, or participating in any real discussions.... This last post of yours just supports that AGAIN, and AGAIN, and AGAIN. PS... If you are going to claim people do something.... You might learn to spell it. Just shows your level of education and your level of maturity when you can't spell an insult."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #170 January 28, 2010 Quote No, but saying "come to my site and donate so we can get Brown elected and Obama will never have another victory again.....(paraphrased)" could be called "fund raising". Um, no - that's the candidate making that statement, not Fox. Quote Putting up pictures that imply financial prosperity for you if Brown gets elected and deliberately hacking up Coakley's statements, while not necessarily "fundraising" could certainly be considered "stumping". I'm sure the other networks did the same for Coakley, as well. A certain ad comparing Brown to the Nazis comes to mind. Quote SO, ok. You got me. They were fund raising and stumping for Brown. Um....yeah, ok. Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #171 January 28, 2010 Quote You got me. They were fund raising and stumping for Brown. And you think only one side does it?"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #172 January 28, 2010 QuoteQuoteDUUUUUDE.. you need a trip to Wisconsin for a refer truck full of cheese.... for this level of wineing It also goes to show your powers of observation suck. You are more concerned with throwing your insults than actually knowing what is going on, or participating in any real discussions.... This last post of yours just supports that AGAIN, and AGAIN, and AGAIN. PS... If you are going to claim people do something.... You might learn to spell it. Just shows your level of education and your level of maturity when you can't spell an insult. I done spelt it dat way on porpoise.. considerin the audience agin. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
idrankwhat 0 #173 January 28, 2010 Quote Um, no - that's the candidate making that statement, not Fox. Um, no -that's Dick Morris on Hannity. "Morris: ......By the way, if you go to DickMorris.com, my website, I have a whole column there about what you can do to help elect Brown. Because if we win this fight, then there'll never be another victory for Obama. He probably will get health care, because the House will pass the Senate version. But he'll never get 60 votes again. SEAN HANNITY (host): All right. MORRIS: And boy, if we could pull this one out, incredible. HANNITY: I agree. MORRIS: So please, please help. QuotePutting up pictures that imply financial prosperity for you if Brown gets elected and deliberately hacking up Coakley's statements, while not necessarily "fundraising" could certainly be considered "stumping". QuoteI'm sure the other networks did the same for Coakley, as well. I'm not. QuoteA certain ad comparing Brown to the Nazis comes to mind. That was an ad that was paid for externally, by either Coakley or a supporter. Not promotion by the network itself. Where did that run by the way? Was it local or national? Just curious. It's in pretty bad taste for anything off the blogosphere. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
idrankwhat 0 #174 January 28, 2010 QuoteQuote You got me. They were fund raising and stumping for Brown. And you think only one side does it? The problem lies in that there are "sides" to news media. FOX is blatant about it, and they're good at it. The other major networks are just inept. In many cases they allow FOX to set the debate by introducing some sort of controversy. Then those networks just report on the status of the controversy and repeat what was repeated. Controversy sells so they run with it. It's mindless "journalism" that takes about as much talent as writing a reality TV show. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wolfriverjoe 1,523 #175 January 28, 2010 Quote QuoteI'm sure the other networks did the same for Coakley, as well. I'm not. If not, was it because the other networks weren't willing to have her on? Or because Coakley couldn't be bothered to go on national TV for a race she was certain to win? And this sort of "news" (by either side) was one of my biggest complaints about McCain/Feingold. It allowed this sort of blatant promotion of a candidate by a "news" organization, but not by any other corporation."There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
