Posted on 03/19/2009 9:03:00 AM PDT by redk
In today's Huffington Post is Joseph A. Palermo's "Cheney, Rove, and Fleischer and the Importance of Net Neutrality." Net neutrality, you see, is yet another way the Left hopes to silence their opposition -- and Palermo calls on Obama's Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to do exactly that. I guess he gets partial credit for honesty. And if this latest example of the Left's rush to suppression via Obama's FCC makes you think of the old Censorship Doctrine or any of the new ones -- "localism," "diversity in media ownership" and serving the "public interest" -- well, it should.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsbusters.org ...
With Communism comes censorship.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joseph-a-palermo/cheney-rove-and-fleischer_b_176346.html
FReep it people! Don’t let these libtards get off easy!
Cripplecreek calls on the Huffpo to shut their stinkin pie holes.
Since neutrality differs based on ones perspective, there is no such thing as neutrality. From my perspective, Karl Rove is a pretty down the middle guy and it is Huffington Post which needs to be banned in the name of neutrality.
First Amendment be damned! Only Liberals deserve rights!
U.S. Constitution - Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
leftist ideology is indefensible,
therefore, you must silence any dissent or criticism.
After all, the "rights" to free speech and freedom of the press come only from the politicians who wrote the First Amendment, and they can be modified by today's politicians as our Living Constitution evolves. They are, in any case, collective rights held by the state governments. Our First Amendment rights are protected when the state government speaks on our behalf or publishes the opinions we ought to hold to save us the trouble of forming our own, potentially dangerous opinions. "The pen is mightier than the sword", and if we won't permit our citizens to keep and bear arms as individuals, it would be foolish to misinterpret the First Amendment under "original intent" (whatever that is) and permit individuals, most of whom are less enlightened than Obama and Pelosi, to speak about important political topics.
With our Living Constitution, the only free speech and free press rights apply to pornography and similar forms of individually protected expression, not to those categories of speech that are vital and cannot be trusted to those irresponsible individuals who agitate for a living.
Rove is a liberal. LOL
Well we will see booming business in satilite, internet radio, and in podcasting bigtime!
Sorry, I’m not giving Huffy-puffy any hits whatsoever to the extent I can prevent it.
“The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth becomes the greatest enemy of the State.” Dr. Joseph M. Goebbels - (Leftist/Nazi/Fascist - Hitler’s propaganda minister)
March 19, 2009 Megaphone Envy and the Fairness Doctrine By Joseph Somsel
Ultimately, liberals and the left don’t envy the size of conservatives’ megaphones; they fear the power of conservative arguments. More dangerously, they resent radio listeners’ freedom to choose. Read it here: http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/03/megaphone_envy_and_the_fairnes.html
PS: Want to listen to downers? - listen to Pacifica FM radio (mentioned in the above article). Democrats use tax-payer dollars to subsidize it since non-neurotic people refuse to tune in to America-hating/America bashing leftist fascists spouting negativity 24/7. bttt
Nice.
“Conservatives are the new Jews. “
Too bad more Jews aren’t conservatives.
They didn’t forget it they blacked it out.
The article at Huffington Post contains two obvious lies: 200,000 Iraqi civilians did not die in the war; and Bush did not “lie” to get the U.S. into the war. Both claims are simple historical untruths, and it is depressing to think that the author, a professor of history obviously aware of their dishonesty, is willing to repeat them.
The only specific recommendations I saw were (1) making Rupert Murdoch sell the New York Post; and (2) “reworking” the Telecommunications Act of 1996. (2) could mean anything - the 1996 Act was a monster hundreds of pages long. The author has something specific in mind, I assume - but what?
Hehe Can’t say I blame you. The absolutely asinine points of view posted over there are shining examples of throwing pearls to swine.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.