If you are really concerned about fairness -
Posted By: Amanda on 2008-10-29
In Reply to: Well isn't it obvious? - sm
I don't understand you folks. I am very concerned about the military having their say in the voting process - I have a son in the military and I want his vote counted (even though he voted for McCain), I have an exhusband in Iraq (who I am sure would not waste his time voting for anybody), but I want their votes counted; however, if you want to be fair then even the homeless people "who do not contribute anything" have the right to vote. Being homeless does not take away their basic rights in this country. You are all talking about how Obama is going to take away this, or take away that, or do this, or do that to the people, but now you are advocating not letting a homeless person vote becaues they don't have a permanent address.
You know what, I have come close to being homeless several times in my life due to unfortunate situations - one of those time when my husband was a SOLDIER and the Army did not pay us for a whole month - and I don't think that homeless people are the scum of the earth and should just be discounted. Any one of us could find ourselves right there on that park bench beside them at any time. If the United States were a better place, then we would not have homeless people sitting on those benches anyway!
I cannot believe the lack of compassion that people in the United States are now showing toward their fellow countrymen!
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
In all fairness. sm
This isn't your list. It's copied and pasted from BuzzFlash. Link below. I only mention it because there was a time some time back when you guys went ballistic on some on the conservative board for doing this.
In all fairness
One thing I agree with you on, if Obama is elected, I fully believe there will be an assassination or at least an attempt. God forbid that should happen. I would far prefer Biden in the Oval office instead of Gov. Airhead. "Experience" in Washington means nothing to me, in fact I would prefer NO Washington experience, provided the Gov. had anything between her ears besides air.
In all fairness. s/m
Someone mentioned Obama's voting record. Has anyone actually looked at his voting record...or McCain's? Obama didn't vote 46.3% of the time. McCain didn't vote 64.1% of the time!!! I find where Obama missed 1 important vote, McCain missed many. In fact, McCain looks like he hardly voted at all in the last couple of years except to speed to Washington to make sure his Wall Street buds got their bail-out. In all fairness, many of the votes both failed to vote on were nothing than motions for cloture (or however you spell that word).
In all fairness
People overseas can vote via e-mail. While I understand that not all of them do and all votes should be counted, there is an alternative to whatever mail problems exist. They only need to go to the FVAP web site. That being said, not everyone in Iraq is lucky enough to have internet access and, from what my husband says, the e-mail voting is quite a pain in the behind because things have to be faxed and all kinds of stuff.
In all fairness...
I am sure that nobody has the time to read every e-mail that he will get. I am sure that they filter them for threats and such, but I doubt he will ever read it unless it is a real standout! Nothing against you, just can't imagine how many e-mails he must get.
And in all fairness
They had to have them disinfected from the Clinton administration. I had heard that it just oozed with cooties.
In all fairness, gourdpainter,
I don't really think Obama is going to come right out and admit that he is friends with Ayers - that would spell disaster for his campaign and plans. I have learned I cannot trust what is fed to me, so I watch all of the stations, including Fox, and I read through tons of information on the internet and make up my own mind instead of letting the media make it up for me.
I will tell you, when this campaign first started, I was so excited to hear what he had to say about the issues and to think he has young kids, etc., etc., but the more I have researched (just facts with proof), I have decided that I cannot vote for this man. He is not who I believe will take America forward. His policies most definitely I don't agree with but I cannot accept a man whose character is questionable.
It doesn't. Now in all fairness....
the campaign says they "had nothing directly" to do with that. Like they had nothing directly to do with Acorn and then had to return 800G. And like they did not provide a list of maxed out donors so Acorn could hit them for get out the vote contributions and registration efforts. Like Acorn is not in the tank for Obama.
Sounds more like the old USSR than the USA.
Then fairness should go on the other hand
Just skip over the posts you don't like.
In all fairness, it won't matter if they
do want to attend to anything with a dem majority. Think Pelosi will get that private plane now? LOL. The party needs to reboot, that's for sure. This is exactly why I don't like a one party majority. We need those checks and balances from both sides, brilliantly set up by our forefathers.
Fairness Doctrine
oh no its not. Geez. Please watch the actual news programs.
Thank you for your fairness and tolerance......nm
nm
The Fairness Doctrine
No one in the Democratic party ever seriously considered restoring the Fairness Doctrine. Someone occasionally will bring it up, but it never goes beyond committee and it dies there. It's not on the Democratic agenda nor will it be. It's yet another canard invented by the right-wing noise machine.
More Fairness Doctrine
The Senate voted to approve a bill granting representation to Washington DC in congress. However, Senate Republican Steering Committee Chairman Jim DeMint (S.C.) and Senate Republican Conference Vice Chairman John Thune (S.D.) added a totally unrelated amendment to the bill prohibiting reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine. The Senate passed the measure 87-11.
In response, Senate Majority Whip D*ck Durbin (D-Ill) proposed an amendment that called for the FCC to encourage diversity in media ownership. This proposal simply re-stated current existing law. It passed 57-41 despite the fact that every single Republican in the Senate voted against it.
So to summarize, the Senate passed an amendment to allow congressional voting privileges for Washington DC, but Senate Republicans added a totally unrelated amendment that prohibits reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine, which the FCC wasn't considering and the Obama administration never supported. Nevertheless, the Democratic-controlled Senate overwhelmingly passed it anyway 87-11. Then, when a Democrat introduced a measure to "encourage diversity in media ownership," every single Senate Republican voted against it.
DeMint told reporters that Democratic efforts to legally encourage diversity in media ownership would open a "back door to censorship."
Uh, okay Jim. Whatever you say. Could this be because the vast majority of the mass media in this country are owned by Republicans? Liberal bias in the media? Gimme a break.
Once again, gt, you are not thinking from a base of fairness.
But I didn't expect you to. And when another poster actually did, you responded with HOW COULD YOU. I expected that, as well. So much for philosophical conversation, exploring intent, and misspeaking. I notice you never mentioned Maher, which, again, is typical. I drew a cogent correlation and you dismissed it completely. Again, expected. Thank you, Gadfly, for the conversation.
Okay, in all fairness, the link does not work for me either. nm
x
I like equality and fairness.....like most grown-ups...nm
nm
Well by all means, in the usual fairness...
of the as-far-from-democratic-Democratic Party...guilty until proven innocent, bash, belittle, and then turn right around in the SAME post and accuse someone else of the same. You need to get a new schtick. YOur number one does not have as much experience as the Repub #2. Yet you keep bringing experience into the conversation.
As to self destruct, not seeing it. Got a little bounce and sucked ALL the air out of the britney spears stage speech.
I am not at all underestimating the clintons....your #1 is, and the DNC is.
Yes, by all means, toe that party line. lol.
As far as your last line...THANK GOD for that!! And may i remind you, on the issue of experience...when Hillary Clinton ran for her NY state senate seat, she had NO experience in government whatsoever, unless you consider running around behind Bill cleaning up his messes experience. She had held absolutely NO legislative positions but I am sure you would agree she has been an effective senator...right?
Puhlezzzzz. Double standard is SHOWING. And all Bill had done before he became Prez was be a governor. Double standard is SHOWING.
geeeez. lol.
It is called the Fairness Doctrine Act
s
There needs to be equality and fairness in congress
Don't shoot me - these are only my observations. Granted I have been very busy with work only catching the news in between, but what I have seen over the past few days or a week is that the republicans are not being treated fairly by the democrats. I voted for Obama because I believed that he would be the best choice and like he said he would be able to get the republicans and democrats to be able to work together. I didn't see that with McCain. I didn't vote for Obama because of his plans because I knew it was just campaigning and all a bunch of garbage. No president yet to this date has ever fulfilled their campaign promises. But I voted for Obama because I believed he would unite the two parties together and maybe something could get done in Washington to help the people. What I have seen so far is just too sad beyond words. More failed promises. I was truly hoping for some "class", but I don't see it happening and I'm not sure if it's worse than it was before. Granted it's only been a couple weeks and I keep hoping things will turn around, but seems like all the people Obama is picking for his cabinet members are democrats (and crooked ones at that) with maybe one or two republicans to give the illusion that he is giving fairness to both sides. As for the congress, all I see on the news is they are acting like a bunch of spoiled children. They are blatantly ignoring republicans as thought they are children saying "we won and you didn't nana nana na na. We don't have to listen to you now nana nana na na" (remember that little song you used to do as kids). There many great republicans and many great democrats. My husband keeps telling me we have to have check and balance. He said these republicans represent part of the country too. Not every person in this country is a democrat and if we give full reign to them that is when you have a dictatorship (tyranny or whatever you want to call it) and they will pass anything they want to paying back all the people who bought them and they promised favors to.
The last administration was certainly not one of the best, but neither was the Clinton or Carter either. DH and I were talking about it last night and he said during Carter administration it was so bad that the only thing out there was the military to join, and that it what I am seeing starting to happen here.
I don't think anything should be "given" to either one side or the other, but the republicans deserve to be treated with the same respect that people are demanding they treat the democrats with. There are good ideas on both sides and if congress is filled with people lining their own pockets then maybe they need to be fired now so we can start again with people who care about the American people and what is happening to the country.
I believe that congress should be filled with people from outside of washington. There are so many good politicians in each state (ones we have never heard of yet), who do good things. Maybe it's time to get rid of people like Pelosi, Reid, Kerry, and all the "stable" washington crowd and replace with people who have a proven record of doing good for our country.
Fairness Doctrine, cont.
Did Pelosi write or sponsor or introduce a bill regarding the Fairness Doctrine? Is it on the Democratic Party platform? Is there pending legislation in the House or the Senate?
The Fairness Doctrine was started in 1949 when media outlets were very limited. It was stopped in 1987 and is unenforceable. Again, the right-wing noise machine takes a remark out of context and tries to build an issue where none exists.
It's ridiculous that the president actually had to announce the fact that Democrats have no intention of trying to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine.
http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=68d07041-7dbc-451d-a18a-752567145610
Fairness Doctrine is Alive and Well
DH told me it's in our paper today, that Schumer is promoting it, but I couldn't find anything on line.
I did find a few articles and the one posted below is the most recent (by Sen. Inhofe) that I could find:
http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/view/93765
In all fairness, your posts were attacking and unkind. sm
And may have even been unfounded. I believe both of you were off base with the posts. I have once again posted a reminder at the top of the board.
You lefties are so fair....the fairness is staggering...
attack him for not paying attention to hurricane and then attack him for paying attention to hurricane. Just proves that all you want to do is attack, attack, attack.
In all fairness, the O rarely voted at all since his campain started
Go check his record on the government site, but in all fairness, McCain didn't vote much either since this campaign. Still I think he voted more than the O. Correct me if I'm wrong.
AND NO BASHING. Serious question here. I don't have time to count every vote and I did try to do that a month ago and posted my results.
Obama opposes Reinstating Fairness Doctrine
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/02/18/white-house-opposes-fairness-doctrine/
Why is fairness in taxation considered a handout? This isn't welfare... it's paying the right
o
Pelosi Erases Gingrich's Long-Standing Fairness Rules....sm
Pelosi Erases Gingrich's Long-Standing Fairness Rules
by Connie Hair
01/05/2009
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi plans to re-write House rules today to ensure that the Republican minority is unable to have any influence on legislation. Pelosi’s proposals are so draconian, and will so polarize the Capitol, that any thought President-elect Obama has of bipartisan cooperation will be rendered impossible before he even takes office.
Pelosi’s rule changes -- which may be voted on today -- will reverse the fairness rules that were written around Newt Gingrich’s “Contract with America.”
In reaction, the House Republican leadership is sending a letter today to Pelosi to object to changes to House Rules this week that would bar Republicans from offering alternative bills, amendments to Democrat bills or even the guarantee of open debate accessible by motions to recommit for any piece of legislation during the entire 111th Congress. These procedural abuses, as outlined in the below letter obtained by HUMAN EVENTS, would also include the repeal of six-year limit for committee chairmen and other House Rules reform measures enacted in 1995 as part of the Contract with America.
After decades of Democrat control of the House of Representatives, gross abuses to the legislative process and several high-profile scandals contributed to an overwhelming Republican House Congressional landslide victory in 1994. Reforms to the House Rules as part of the Contract with America were designed to open up to public scrutiny what had become under this decades-long Democrat majority a dangerously secretive House legislative process. The Republican reform of the way the House did business included opening committee meetings to the public and media, making Congress actually subject to federal law, term limits for committee chairmen ending decades-long committee fiefdoms, truth in budgeting, elimination of the committee proxy vote, authorization of a House audit, specific requirements for blanket rules waivers, and guarantees to the then-Democrat minority party to offer amendments to pieces of legislation.
Pelosi’s proposed repeal of decades-long House accountability reforms exposes a tyrannical Democrat leadership poised to assemble legislation in secret, then goose-step it through Congress by the elimination of debate and amendment procedures as part of America’s governing legislative process.
Below is the text of the letter on which the House Republican leadership has signed off.
January 5, 2009
The Honorable Nancy Pelosi
Speaker of the House
H-232, U.S. Capitol
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Madame Speaker,
We hope you and your family had a joyful holiday season, and as we begin a new year and a new Congress, we look forward to working with you, our colleagues on both sides of the aisle, and President-elect Obama in tackling the many challenges facing our nation.
President Obama has pledged to lead a government that is open and transparent. With that in mind, we are deeply troubled by media reports indicating that the Democratic leadership is poised to repeal reforms put in place in 1995 that were intended to help restore Americans’ trust and confidence in the People’s House. Specifically, these reports note that the Majority, as part of its rules package governing the new Congress, will end six-year term limits for Committee chairs and further restrict the opportunity for all members to offer alternative legislation. This does not represent change; it is reverting back to the undemocratic one-party rule and backroom deals that the American people rejected more than a decade ago. And it has grave implications for the American people and their freedom, coming at a time when an unprecedented expansion of federal power and spending is being hastily planned by a single party behind closed doors. Republicans will vigorously oppose repealing these reforms if they are brought to a vote on the House floor.
As you know, after Republicans gained the majority in the House in 1995, our chamber adopted rules to limit the terms of all committee chairs to three terms in order to reward new ideas, innovation, and merit rather than the strict longevity that determined chairmanships in the past. This reform was intended to help restore the faith and trust of the American people in their government – a theme central to President-elect Obama’s campaign last year. He promoted a message of “change,” but Madame Speaker, abolishing term limit reform is the opposite of “change.” Instead, it will entrench a handful of Members of the House in positions of permanent power, with little regard for its impact on the American people.
The American people also stand to pay a price if the Majority further shuts down free and open debate on the House floor by refusing to allow all members the opportunity to offer substantive alternatives to important legislation -- the same opportunities that Republicans guaranteed to Democrats as motions to recommit during their 12 years in the Minority. The Majority’s record in the last Congress was the worst in history when it came to having a free and open debate on the issues.
This proposed change also would prevent Members from exposing and offering proposals to eliminate tax increases hidden by the Democratic Majority in larger pieces of legislation. This is not the kind of openness and transparency that President-elect Obama promised. This change would deprive tens of millions of Americans the opportunity to have a voice in the most important policy decisions facing our country.
Madame Speaker, we urge you to reconsider the decision to repeal these reforms, which could come up for a vote as early as tomorrow. Just as a new year brings fresh feelings of optimism and renewal for the American people, so too should a new Congress. Changing the House rules in the manner highlighted by recent media reports would have the opposite effect: further breaching the trust between our nation’s elected representatives and the men and women who send them to Washington to serve their interests and protect their freedom.
Sincerely,
Rep. John Boehner (R-Ohio), Republican Leader
Rep. Eric Cantor (R-Va.), Republican Whip
Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.), Conference Chairman
Rep. Thaddeus McCotter (R-Mich.), Policy Committee Chairman
Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Wyo.), Conference Vice-Chair
Rep. John Carter (R-Texas), Conference Secretary
Rep. Pete Sessions (R-Texas), NRCC Chairman
Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), Chief Deputy Whip
Rep. David Dreier (R-Calif.), Rules Committee Ranking Republican
(Click here for a pdf copy of the letter with signatures.)
Please don't tell me what to be concerned about. SM
I don't think any of us need a lecture on Christian belief systems and the Bible. We should ALL be concerned, interested and knowledgable about what is happening in Israel. I seriously do not understand where you are coming from at all. Your placating tone reminds me of a mother comforting a child who has just gotten a boo boo. If you don't want to be concerned about Israel and what is happening, fine, don't join in the discussion, but to say that Americans, most especially Christian Americans, have no need to worry their little heads is not only bizarre, it is insulting.
This is what I am concerned about sm
They will create another incident and we will get martial law. They gave themselves that power with the Patriot Act, and are just waiting for the incident to enact it. You are right, God bless us all. One never knows how a cornered animal will act - very scary.
You obviously are not concerned about...sm
your children, maybe you don't have any, or maybe you are a pedophile. Why don't you think this is not important?
I'm much more concerned
about Obama saying that he had visited 57 states in the US. LOL! Sorry pal.....there aren't that many states in the good ole US of A. Personally, I think that is much worse considering that is our own country compared to a man who doesn't know who the prime minister is of another country.
You should be concerned
How is it that Obama just "happens" to have these neighbors: Louis Farrakhan, William Ayers, & Rev. Wright?
So are you saying that you don't think there's any involvement with these men in the last 10 years (or less)? If so, you'll be in for a huge surprise as more info comes out. Frankly, I'm amazed at how lethargic the public has been, just accepting anything the driveby media reports (more like FAILS to report)!
You have every right to be concerned.
The frenzy that has come about through all of this is like regressing us back to the 50s, and there are a lot of crazies out there that might be thinking about vigilante-style retribution -- on either side depending on who wins. I believe we might be in for some trying times. Be safe.
As far as I'm concerned
it's all in the definition of "brother" and "sister." My brothers and sisters are those I see in need, not necessarily my biological brothers and sisters. I haven't heard Obama (or McCain for that matter) describe who they consider their "brothers" and "sisters."
I am not the only one concerned
Who is worried, scared and fearful for our country. I feel sorry for you who does not see the light.
This is something we truly need to be concerned about
The snowball is on a downhill course and picking up speed, probably irreversible at this point.
http://www.hyperhistory.com/online_n2/connections_n2/great_depression.html
Exactly!, As far as I am concerned,
most of the celebrity opinions I have heard have been a display of ignorance more than anything to me. Doesn't impress me a bit, never have any depth to them. And Olbermann really found a winner with this one!!
I would be more concerned if it were
a conservative judge retiring. He'll just add in a liberal to replace a liberal. No need to get worked up just yet.
Is anyone else here concerned about
the control the unions are getting. I know unions contribute to democrats, but the very idea of the Obama administration allowing the unions to have so much during Chrysler's bankruptcy....which isn't the way it should be at all. Obama has literally blown off everyone to make the unions have more control and make money. Now in CA we have the White House telling CA that they cannot cut union wages or they will lose their stimulus money. I just don't see how this doesn't concern people on here. Our government is out of control. I don't know that I agree with Obama wanting unemployment to go up. However, I have to wonder if Obama really cares about what he is doing here. Cap and trade will cut more jobs. Going green will create jobs initially but they won't sustain them. All of these construction jobs and infrastructure jobs he will create aren't sustainable. What happens when the job is done? People are out of work again.
Our government is out of control, unions are gaining more and more control.......I just don't like the way this is heading.
As far as you are concerned is the sm
magic word but you are so very wrong. You will one day wake up in he!! and you will remember the words you had spoken and you will remember them throughout eternity.
The things I could have done??? I can do anything I please and the things that are not pleasing to God are not things I would enjoy doing.
I have not wasted my life and even IF you were right, which you are not, I would rather live a Christian life than not any day of the week.
I am not miserable I am very happy. I know what awaits me someday but for you.........well I fear for you and I also pity you because you really do not know what you are saying. I hope you figure it out before it's too late.
Obviously, I am done with this conversation. It has turned into an argument by one of Satan's own.
As far as you are concerned is the sm
magic word but you are so very wrong. You will one day wake up in he!! and you will remember the words you had spoken and you will remember them throughout eternity.
The things I could have done??? I can do anything I please and the things that are not pleasing to God are not things I would enjoy doing.
I have not wasted my life and even IF you were right, which you are not, I would rather live a Christian life than not any day of the week.
I am not miserable I am very happy. I know what awaits me someday but for you.........well I fear for you and I also pity you because you really do not know what you are saying. I hope you figure it out before it's too late.
Obviously, I am done with this conversation. It has turned into an argument by one of Satan's own.
I am more concerned about how
other countries are laughing at us, how our government is spending us into the ground without batting an eyelash about it, how we are more concerned about the treatment of terrorists than we are the potential danger we could put our troops in by showing these memos, etc., how terrorist think we are weak and they continue to hate us no matter whether we torture them or not.
Call me names all you like, but I do believe that Bush and Cheney did what they did to try to obtain information to save American lives. This isn't like T-ball where everyone gets a trophy in the end and there are no winners or losers. This is war.....get a clue!
It's the same thing, as far as I am concerned.
x
"voters were concerned about the
language in some of them (books) and felt it inappropriate for their children. This was to help keep bad language away from their children. Not to get rid of them because a certain race, nationality, etc. wrote them. The Nazis burned books written by Jews. This is entirely different." Your words. This is not different at all, and the statement is absurd. Once you take even one book off the shelf, you have invited pure anarchy/tyrrany. This would elimintate my and my children's freedom of speech and expression. Secondly, you want to take away my responsibility as a parent for my children. Thirdly, this kind of gov't would take away all freedom of thought, how we get our information of the world, different viewpoints, different cultures, different ideas, etc., etc., an extremely dangerous slope. For the love of freedom, please don't dictate to me or my kids what we can read, write, think, etc.
this chick is more concerned
that some son of a generally unknown guy expressed the opinion that the Dem convention was run well than the RIGHT AMENDMENT!! What screwed up priorities you have, sista.
The only boogeyman I am concerned about....
is Barack the socialist Obama. Even in the face of this crisis he is STILL standing by programs that will cost billions and wanting to RAISE taxes. With the economy in this kind of shape. Good grief. I would not expect he himself to know better but for the love of heck WHO is advising him??? I don't want him (or them, whoever they are) anywhere NEAR the White House.
With all due respect.
You seem to be overly concerned about someone
you don't think much of, even having to resort to nit picking just to have something to yap about.
I believe YOU were concerned about racism...
+
I'm not so concerned about her as I am Obama's
He's the one running for presidency, not her.
Why are you so concerned about this person?
//
|
