It is called the Fairness Doctrine Act
Posted By: shelly on 2009-02-06
In Reply to: Bush threatened to cut off PBS funding.. - sm
s
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
Fairness Doctrine
oh no its not. Geez. Please watch the actual news programs.
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.
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
Obama opposes Reinstating Fairness Doctrine
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/02/18/white-house-opposes-fairness-doctrine/
The Carter Doctrine.....
hmmmm. Very, very interesting article. I'm not sure I agree with some of the broad unsubstantiated statements but all in all, a very interesting article. Thanks for posting!
The Bush Doctrine
What about the Bush doctrine?
REMEMBER George W. Bush? He was the president who warned in 2002 that Iran and North Korea were part of an "axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world." On his watch, he vowed, the United States would "not permit the world's most dangerous regimes to threaten us with the world's most destructive weapons." Bush was the leader who pledged at his second inauguration to support "democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world." He let it be known that the truculence of rogues and dictators would not be indulged. "Some," he said pointedly, "have unwisely chosen to test America's resolve - and have found it firm." Whatever became of him? The president who in the wake of Sept. 11 posed a stark choice to the sponsors of jihadist violence - "You are either with us, or you are with the terrorists" - where is he now? And, more important, where is the foreign policy he once stood for? For some time now it has been apparent that the Bush Doctrine - with the single exception of Iraq - didn't survive the Bush presidency. Notwithstanding the president's heartfelt words about supporting democratic reformers, for example, dissidents and freedom-seekers have largely been forgotten.
So it has gone in one country after another. In Russia, in Saudi Arabia, in China, the Bush administration's commitment to liberty and democratic reform has subsided into little more than lip service. The principled "freedom agenda" Bush championed so ardently has evaporated. In its place is the old "realist" agenda he had sworn to overhaul: stability, business-as-usual, stand-by-your-(strong)man.
What about those dangerous regimes that were seeking the world's most destructive weapons?
In a dispiriting Weekly Standard cover story on Condoleezza Rice's record as secretary of state, Stephen Hayes notes that six years after Bush vowed to keep Iran and North Korea from going nuclear, "North Korea is a nuclear power and Iran is either on the brink . . . or making substantial progress." Despite a "seemingly endless series of multilateral negotiations" aimed at neutralizing the two dictatorships, Pyongyang and Tehran have grown more, not less, provocative. "And in each case," Hayes writes, "the State Department has gone out of its way to avoid dealing with these provocations lest they jeopardize our diplomacy." The Bush Doctrine was clear: Any regime aiding terrorists or other enemies of the United States would pay a severe price. Yet when North Korea was caught providing nuclear technology to Syria, the State Department wanted the news kept secret - for fear, writes Hayes, that public disclosure of North Korea's proliferati on might ruin negotiations. When he asked Rice what price Iran has paid for arming and training the Iraqi insurgents who kill US troops, she replied vaguely that "there are lots of consequences" but mentioned only the capture of an Iranian paramilitary commander in Irbil 18 months ago. "Well," she said, when pressed on whether she would negotiate with Iran even as it foments terrorism, "we've said we would talk about everything, all right."
Back in 2000, Rice faulted the Clinton administration for being so obsessed with the trees of diplomacy that it repeatedly missed the forest of US national interest. "Multilateral agreements and institutions should not be ends in themselves," she wrote in an essay for Foreign Affairs. Now, alas, she presides over an all-too-Clintonian foreign policy in which negotiations and agreements outweigh actual improvement and change. From North Korea to the Palestinian Authority to the United Nations, the principles of the Bush Doctrine are forgotten. "We have gone," one State Department official sadly tells Hayes, "from a policy of preemption to a policy of preemptive capitulation." Is that to be the epitaph of Bush's foreign policy? VOTE FOR MORE OF THE MCSAME!!!!!
There are many tenets to the Bush Doctrine...
if he had been honest, when she asked for clarification, he should have given it, if he was seeking the truth. Either his researchers screwed up, or he deliberately set her up.
Go to the Trinity website and read their doctrine...
no amount of good deeds cover racism. The man is a racist and thinks Louis Farrakhan is a great man. Louis Farrakhan,Nation of Islam...need I say more? (Talking about Wright, not Obama). He was not "associated" with Trinity. He was a member. Wright baptized at least one of his children. Obama stated Wright was his mentor. There was clearly much more than an "association" and at first Obama defended him, until his handlers told him that he would tank his Presidential bid, then he started distancing himself. That is the real Barack Obama, the politician. Win at all costs, even if you throw your lifelong mentor/friend under the bus. That sounds more like the "same old Washington" to me than hope and change. Sorry...that's the way I feel. As I have said before, I would like to sit both of them down, inject a little sodium pentothal and let regular folks ask them some questions. No news commentators, not pundits, just regular off-the-street folks. THEN and only THEN will we know what Obama really feels and thinks. And how he really feels and thinks is how he will govern. Surely we have learned that by now as far as politicians go. How many have actually done what they said they were going to do...?
I will not be voting for Obama, because I don't like his voting record, which does not match what he is saying now (which, in me, automatically arouses mistrust), I am not comfortable with is associations in south Chicago including his Daley connections, and I think both he and his wife have racist tendencies. He may be 1/2 white and 1/2 black, but he considers himself black and you can bet the farm Michelle considers him black as well. Read up a little on her. Wowser.
And just because Reverend Wright lived in a generation where life in America was different...America IS different now. Preaching hate from the pulpit is not consistent with the Christianity I know, and I don't care if it is a white racist in South Mississippi doing it or a black racist in Chicago doing it...it is still wrong in my books. God said many would come as wolves in sheep's clothing...and many would identify themselves with His name (Christians), but they would not be of Him. It should be obvious by how they live their lives both in the pulpit and outside it, and I believe Reverend wright's actions speak for themselves. As do the KKK, who also profess that they are doing God's work. Both of them seriously delusional, and seriously racist. And both wrong. In my opinion. But, that is an attitude, on both sides, that we don't need running this country. We have a virulent racist in Congress right now...Robert Byrd, Dem from W VA I believe. Was an imperial wizard in the Klan. Has had numerous verbal racist gaffes over the year, but his state keeps sending him back. SIGH. Oh well...that was not the subject.
I just hope people get past the packaging on Obama and try to get inside the box. Not nearly as pretty on the inside....again, my opinion after research and no, I do not get it from Fox News...lol. I have read Obama's books, and I am reading other books now concerning him, and if I see something in the book that is stated as fact I am verifying it. If you want to know the real Obama, look deep.
Here's a clue. Ever heard of the Bush Doctrine?
somehow I think you might have more on the ball than she does.
Agreed! "Fairness Doctrine" is a joke. is really
nm
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.
If you are really concerned about fairness -
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!
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.
Thank you for your fairness and tolerance......nm
nm
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.
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.
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.
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.)
What's it called?
It's called LYING.
Uh, maybe that's why it's called
What's more he/she/it started out with a sarcastic remark of *aren't we worthy*? You sound like crybabies. Liberal board is for liberal people. Now is that so hard?
Nobody was called (nm)
x
He should be called on this and often...nm
While he stands up there being the hypocrite he is.
I am the one who called him that. sm
I stand by what I said. He may not have raped Kathleen Willey or Paula Jones, but he may as well have. I totally believe he did rape Juanita Broaddick.
and you won't be called (nor have I)
They call mostly Democrats and "likely voters." Rasmussen, Gallup, and Daily Tracking are the most reputable ones, but even so, I ignore them.
Also, keep in mind that being on the no-call list prevents you from being called unless I'm mistaken.
You called it yourself--- not me!
 Vote Away
He actually called him ......(sm)
a *house negro* as well as Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice. He also said he was no Malcom X and was betraying the Islam faith. I haven't heard Obama's reaction yet, but I think it's kind of funny. The terminology is outdated and laughable, and who wants to be like Malcolm X? Was the reference to Malcolm X supposed to be an insult or a compliment?
It's called........... sm
disillusionment and resignation, GP. The more I read about the whole BC thing and now hearing that the SCOTUS has delayed the hearing another 5 days, I guess I am resigned to the idea that nothing is going to stand in the way of Obama....not the Constitution and not the voice of the people. I kind of look at the Constitution as I do the Bible and sin. A sin is a sin to God (excepting one) and breaking one part of the Constitution is breaking the whole thing. Call me gloom and doom if you want, but I have come to the realization that we are not living in a democracy or a republic. We are living in a political machine that operates at its whim without regard for our country's most basic foundations.
On the Clinton-Obama front, like I said. It should be interesting, to say the least, but you can bet your bottom dollar that Hillary is getting something more out of this than just the letters SOS out beside her name. There is more that goes on in Washington than is dreamed of by mere residents (I won't even use the word "citizens") of this once great nation.
Pardon my sardonic pessimism this morning. lol
That's called....(sm)
They'll get it however they can. Check this out. We have a double lot (just enough to keep me busy with a garden...lol). When we bought the place there was a really old shed at the back of the property. It was built probably about 40-50 years ago. This thing was literally falling down, dirt floors.....completely in shambles and definitely not inhabitable. We knew we would have to tear it down when we moved here. So, we noticed on the assessment that 2K of the state assessment was attributed to that shed. Yeah right. We didn't need anything more than a sledge hammer and a crowbar to tear it down. So, after we took it down we had them come out for a re-assessment. They took $200 off the assessment value. Hmmmm..... Yeah, I raised cane with them but it didn't do any good. I've been planning on putting a greenhouse out there. I can't wait to see what happens with that.
No, that is just called being a
nm
That's called....(sm)
Let's scare the public into thinking the stimulus is evil. What a joke! That's almost as good as Steele saying the stimulus doesn't create jobs, it creates work. Talk about grasping at straws....
Unless you would like to be called
the "c" word (4 letters ends with "t"), then I would think twice.
This is highly offensive to some people and you know this. Reading your post is like dealing with my children who are 5 and 6 years old. One instigates the other calling each other names to lure the other into a fight. The difference though is my 5 and 6 year old are more mature than you are and understand the concept of playing nicely and treating each other with respectfully. They understand if they've said something that hurts the others feelings they will say they are sorry. Something you obviously don't understand. And after reading that you adore and hang onto every word Keith Oberfool has to say and you let him tell you how to think and what to say and do, I had to read no further than your first sentence.
Posters on this board have been disrespectful towards others. You think your aiding your cause by calling us teabaggers? Think again. You think your aiding your cause by saying anyone who participated is a racist? Well the laugh is on you because in these crowds of thousands upon thousands upon thousands of people I saw plenty of black people. Go ahead, tell them they are racist.
You know I do hope you keep it up, I do hope Oberfool an the other moe-rons at BSNBC keep having guests on like this piece of garbage Gorofool. You wouldn't see the truth if it slapped you in the face. Go ahead and laugh it up, because I'm right there smiling all the way to the elections next year. So go ahead keep calling us names. The laugh will be on you.
First of all, don't believe I called you
JTBB now did I? I don't think so. Secondly, I was being comical when I said I too have sleep deprivation, etc. Loosen up a bit. Dang. I think you need to take a Xanax and chill out a bit. Sheesh.
Regardless of my joking, which you obviously didn't get, I have no sympathy for people who want us dead.
LOL, and you called me a bigot up above, so
x
GT, you have called me a bigot....
on this board at least 10 times. Who's the one who generalizes here? I can guarantee you that if I'm guilty, I'm certainly not alone. Oh yes, all Republicans are rich and living behind gates, ignoring the plight of the poor. Bull pucky. Talk about a sweeping generalization. I don't live behind a gate, I don't live in a fancy house, we make a decent income but are certainly not rich, and guess what? We're not even religious. You want equality for everybody? Well, that isn't something that is given to you, it's something you work for. My husband spent 7-1/2 yrs in college and got a master's degree, and worked his way through the whole thing at a gas station paying for it himself. We work long hours. There are people who refuse to value education, refuse to work hard, and just want a hand out. That's a fact. There have always been the poor and there always will be. We've poured TRILLIONS AND TRILLIONS of dollars into programs for the poor over the last 40 years and the poverty rate is basically the same. To succeed takes effort.
It's called the TRUTH!!!
|
!["](http://cache.boston.com/bonzai-fba/File-Based_Image_Resource/dingbat_story_%20%20end_icon.gif"){kind=icon}
