Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Itís back!plan to kill talk radio. Group advising White House wants to restore controversial policy
Klein Online ^ | 2 1 2012 | Aaron Klein

Posted on 02/02/2012 7:51:58 AM PST by tutstar

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-96 last
To: pgkdan
That was just a link to the opinion of a unnamed PJ media poster and the opinion of same. Nothing cited to back it up, no records of a vote, nothing but an “ I think this or that happened” spew of BS.
51 posted on 02/02/2012 9:02:56 AM PST by Beagle8U (Free Republic -- One stop shopping ....... It's the Conservative Super WalMart for news .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: GrandJediMasterYoda

Is it possible then that there are unintended consequences in this? The 80’s brought Reagan. Maybe we have weakness in the Conservative political area because they think radio talkers will carry the water for them? It doesn’t seem like the Conservative side is all that much stronger due to the talkers, many of whom have morphed into establishment types who are for party over philosophy. The right-talkers may be diluting action with so much talk.

We talk and vent and feel as if we have DONE something. If and when it is tamped down maybe there would be “a little less talk and a lot more action.” Maybe not. Just a thought along the lines that things often have an opposite effect as in “only Nixon can go to China” and “only Clinton can cut welfare.”


52 posted on 02/02/2012 9:05:40 AM PST by Anima Mundi (NO SPECIAL PRIVILEGE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Joe the Pimpernel

Rahm Emmanuel’s eyes. Sort of like Beria’s, too. If only it were that easy to ID them.


53 posted on 02/02/2012 9:12:38 AM PST by DBrow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: tutstar
Photobucket
54 posted on 02/02/2012 9:19:37 AM PST by Thorliveshere
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tutstar

The problem is that today, with the advances in technology, conservative talkers can just move to satellite or internet broadcasts.


55 posted on 02/02/2012 9:24:14 AM PST by Thane_Banquo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pgkdan; All

Latest Title: Fairness in Broadcasting Act of 1987
Sponsor: Rep Dingell, John D. [MI-16] (introduced 4/2/1987)      Cosponsors (71)
Related Bills: H.RES.179S.742
Latest Major Action: 6/3/1987 Passed/agreed to in House. Status: Passed House by Yea-Nay Vote: 302 - 102 (Record Vote No: 164).
Latest Action: 6/3/1987 Other Measure S.742 Passed House in Lieu.
Jump to: Summary, Major Actions, All Actions, Titles, Cosponsors, Committees, Related Bill Details, AmendmentsAbstracts

SUMMARY AS OF:
4/2/1987--Introduced.

Fairness in Broadcasting Act of 1987 - Expresses the findings of the Congress that the Fairness Doctrine: (1) fairly reflects the statutory obligations of broadcasters; (2) received statutory approval from the Congress in 1959; and (3) reasonably balances first amendment rights.

Amends the Communications Act of 1934 to require broadcast licensees to provide a reasonable opportunity for the discussion of conflicting views on issues of public importance. Requires enforcement and application of such requirement to be consistent with the rules and policies of the Federal Communications Commission in effect on January 1, 1987.


MAJOR ACTIONS:

4/2/1987 Introduced in House
5/27/1987 Reported to House by House Committee on Energy and Commerce. Report No: 100-108.
6/3/1987 Passed/agreed to in House: Passed House by Yea-Nay Vote: 302 - 102 (Record Vote No: 164).

ALL ACTIONS: (Floor Actions/Congressional Record Page References)
4/2/1987:
Referred to House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
4/7/1987:
Referred to Subcommittee on Telecommunications and Finance.
4/7/1987:
Subcommittee Hearings Held.
5/7/1987:
Subcommittee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
5/7/1987:
Forwarded by Subcommittee to Full Committee.
5/13/1987:
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
5/13/1987:
Ordered to be Reported.
5/27/1987:
Reported to House by House Committee on Energy and Commerce. Report No: 100-108.
5/27/1987:
Placed on Union Calendar No: 75.
5/28/1987:
Committee on Rules Granted an Open Rule Providing One Hour of General Debate.
5/28/1987:
Rules Committee Resolution H.Res.179 Reported to House.
6/3/1987:
H.AMDT.183 Amendment Offered by Representative Green.
An amendment to exempt radio broadcasters from the provisions of the Fairness Doctrine.
6/3/1987:
H.AMDT.183 Amendment Failed of Passage in Committee of Whole by Recorded Vote: 71 - 333 (Record Vote No: 163).
6/3/1987:
Rule Passed House.
6/3/1987:
Called up by House by Rule.
6/3/1987:
Passed House by Yea-Nay Vote: 302 - 102 (Record Vote No: 164).
6/3/1987:
Laid on Table in House by Voice Vote.
6/3/1987:
Other Measure S.742 Passed House in Lieu.

TITLE(S):  (italics indicate a title for a portion of a bill)
COSPONSORS(71), ALPHABETICAL [followed by Cosponsors withdrawn]:     (Sort: by date)

Rep Akaka, Daniel K. [HI-2] - 5/7/1987
Rep Bliley, Tom [VA-3] - 4/2/1987
Rep Bonior, David E. [MI-12] - 4/2/1987
Rep Boucher, Rick [VA-9] - 4/2/1987
Rep Boxer, Barbara [CA-6] - 4/2/1987
Rep Brooks, Jack B. [TX-9] - 4/2/1987
Rep Bryant, John W. [TX-5] - 4/2/1987
Rep Buechner, Jack [MO-2] - 5/7/1987
Rep Bustamante, Albert G. [TX-23] - 5/7/1987
Rep Callahan, Sonny [AL-1] - 5/7/1987
Rep Coelho, Anthony Lee [CA-15] - 4/2/1987
Rep Coleman, E. Thomas [MO-6] - 5/7/1987
Rep Collins, Cardiss [IL-7] - 4/2/1987
Rep Conte, Silvio O. [MA-1] - 5/27/1987
Rep Cooper, Jim [TN-4] - 5/7/1987
Rep Craig, Larry E. [ID-1] - 4/2/1987
Rep Crane, Philip M. [IL-12] - 5/27/1987
Rep Dannemeyer, William E. [CA-39] - 4/2/1987
Rep Daub, Hal [NE-2] - 5/7/1987
Rep de Lugo, Ron [VI] - 5/27/1987
Rep DeFazio, Peter A. [OR-4] - 5/7/1987
Rep Dellums, Ronald V. [CA-8] - 4/2/1987
Rep Dixon, Julian C. [CA-28] - 4/2/1987
Rep Dornan, Robert K. [CA-38] - 4/2/1987
Rep Dyson, Roy [MD-1] - 5/7/1987
Rep Eckart, Dennis E. [OH-11] - 4/2/1987
Rep Fascell, Dante B. [FL-19] - 4/2/1987
Rep Fields, Jack [TX-8] - 4/2/1987
Rep Ford, William D. [MI-15] - 4/2/1987
Rep Gingrich, Newt [GA-6] - 4/2/1987
Rep Gray, William H., III [PA-2] - 4/2/1987
Rep Hayes, Charles A. [IL-1] - 5/7/1987
Rep Hochbrueckner, George J. [NY-1] - 5/7/1987
Rep Hughes, William J. [NJ-2] - 5/7/1987
Rep Hyde, Henry J. [IL-6] - 4/2/1987
Rep Lagomarsino, Robert J. [CA-19] - 4/2/1987
Rep Leach, James A. [IA-1] - 4/2/1987
Rep Leland, Mickey [TX-18] - 4/2/1987
Rep Levine, Mel [CA-27] - 5/7/1987
Rep Lipinski, William O. [IL-5] - 5/7/1987
Rep Lott, Trent [MS-5] - 4/2/1987
Rep Madigan, Edward R. [IL-15] - 5/7/1987
Rep Markey, Edward J. [MA-7] - 4/2/1987
Rep Marlenee, Ron [MT-2] - 4/2/1987
Rep Martinez, Matthew G. [CA-30] - 5/7/1987
Rep Murtha, John P. [PA-12] - 4/2/1987
Rep Nielson, Howard C. [UT-3] - 4/2/1987
Rep Oberstar, James L. [MN-8] - 4/2/1987
Rep Owens, Major R. [NY-12] - 5/7/1987
Rep Pepper, Claude [FL-18] - 4/2/1987
Rep Rangel, Charles B. [NY-16] - 4/2/1987
Rep Scheuer, James H. [NY-8] - 5/7/1987
Rep Schroeder, Patricia [CO-1] - 4/2/1987
Rep Schuette, Bill [MI-10] - 5/7/1987
Rep Schumer, Charles E. [NY-10] - 4/2/1987
Rep Solarz, Stephen J. [NY-13] - 5/7/1987
Rep Stenholm, Charles W. [TX-17] - 4/2/1987
Rep Stokes, Louis [OH-21] - 4/2/1987
Rep Sundquist, Don [TN-7] - 5/7/1987
Rep Synar, Mike [OK-2] - 5/7/1987
Rep Torres, Estaban Edward [CA-34] - 5/7/1987
Rep Udall, Morris K. [AZ-2] - 4/2/1987
Rep Vento, Bruce F. [MN-4] - 5/7/1987
Rep Walgren, Doug [PA-18] - 4/2/1987
Rep Waxman, Henry A. [CA-24] - 4/2/1987
Rep Weber, Vin [MN-2] - 4/2/1987
Rep Weiss, Ted [NY-17] - 5/7/1987
Rep Wise, Robert E., Jr. [WV-3] - 5/7/1987
Rep Wolpe, Howard E. [MI-3] - 5/7/1987
Rep Wyden, Ron [OR-3] - 4/2/1987
Rep Yates, Sidney R. [IL-9] - 4/2/1987


COMMITTEE(S):
RELATED BILL DETAILS:  (additional related bills may be indentified in Status)
56 posted on 02/02/2012 9:31:41 AM PST by DBrow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: pgkdan; All
And the vote result for Newton Gingrich on HR 1934 is AYE:

House Roll #158

Jun 3, 1987
Aye
302-102, 26 not voting

57 posted on 02/02/2012 9:36:55 AM PST by DBrow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: tutstar
"They will never give up trying to silence us and we will never give up resisting them!"

Thank God Almighty, I'm Unfree at Last!

bttt

58 posted on 02/02/2012 9:40:44 AM PST by Matchett-PI ("One party will generally represent the envied, the other the envious. Guess which ones." ~GagdadBob)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Joe the Pimpernel

59 posted on 02/02/2012 9:46:28 AM PST by Fresh Wind ('People have got to know whether or not their president is a crook.' Richard M. Nixon)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Logical me
The railroad tracks come right up to the gates

New Nationwide FEMA Camps Should Raise Eyebrows.

60 posted on 02/02/2012 9:49:57 AM PST by tutstar (Want pings to Aaron Klein articles and OWS nonsense?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: pgkdan; All

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h1987-158


61 posted on 02/02/2012 9:50:55 AM PST by DBrow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: TEXOKIE

Add me to your ping list and see my post #60. There are many more videos including a 3 parter by Jesse Ventura.


62 posted on 02/02/2012 9:54:22 AM PST by tutstar (Want pings to Aaron Klein articles and OWS nonsense?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: tutstar

Who are they trying to silence? The recently exposed GOP mouthpieces in talk radio? A few months ago, this would have had me up in arms. Rush, Beck, Savage, et al. should be glad that most of us will oppose this on principle.

Ironically, the talk radio blowhards will bend over backwards trying to get us to vote for Romney when, in all likelihood, he’d support something like this.


63 posted on 02/02/2012 9:56:01 AM PST by Cato in PA (1/26/12: Bloody Thursday)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tutstar

Look for it to be thrown out by the Supremes in a outbursts of laughter!


64 posted on 02/02/2012 9:57:44 AM PST by Biggirl ("Jesus talked to us as individuals"-Jim Vicevich/Thanks JimV!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tutstar

I tad my hubby that the other day.Combine that with the new mortgage program where you will refi with the government we are but steps away from the government having access to all properties if people are dumb enough to finace with them.


65 posted on 02/02/2012 9:59:57 AM PST by chris_bdba
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: tutstar

I tad my hubby that the other day.Combine that with the new mortgage program where you will refi with the government we are but steps away from the government having access to all properties if people are dumb enough to finance with them.


66 posted on 02/02/2012 10:00:06 AM PST by chris_bdba
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: tutstar

Yawn. Talk radio is already dead. Even conservative talkers (Mark Levin, excepted) are part of the establishment media. They won’t kill it because it already serves them. They will just make it more difficult for new challengers to arise.


67 posted on 02/02/2012 10:00:32 AM PST by Antoninus (Mitt Romney -- attempting to execute a hostile take-over of the Republican Party.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tutstar

Evil never rests.


68 posted on 02/02/2012 10:12:24 AM PST by crosshairs (Liberalism is to truth, what east is to west.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Adder

Well said!!!!


69 posted on 02/02/2012 10:21:31 AM PST by Postman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Conscience of a Conservative

They can say whatever they want. As long as they mutter amongst themselves I don’t care.

We do not need their idiocy to become policy because they have the ear of the bureaucrats.

And so long as those bureaus are openly radical leftist because of the policies of the head of the executive branch, they are a danger to have those ideas implemented.

Then I have a real problem. As will we all.


70 posted on 02/02/2012 10:28:00 AM PST by Adder (Say NO to the O in 2 oh 12)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: tutstar

These are the Dupes, Leftists and Communists who admit to being this group’s advisors. Note that Gary Hart and Van Jones are included.

Members of the National Advisory Committee are:
Co-chair:
Gary Hart
U.S. Senator (ret.)
Wirth Chair, University of Colorado Denver
Chairman Emeritus:
Ray Anderson
Founder and Chairman of the Board
Interface Inc.

Members:
Scott Bernstein
President
Center for Neighborhood Technology
Jennifer Morgan
Director, Climate Energy Program
World Resources Institute
April Bucksbaum
Vice President
The Baum Foundation
Michael Northrup
Program Director
Sustainable Development
Rockefeller Brothers Fund
Brian Castelli
Executive Vice President
Alliance to Save Energy
David Orr
Paul Sears Distinguished Professor
Environmental Studies and Politics
Oberlin College
Roger Clark
Air and Energy Program Director
Grand Canyon Trust
John L. Peterson
President
The Arlington Institute
Reid Detchon
Executive Director
Energy Future Coalition
Tom Peterson
Founder, President & CEO
Center for Climate Strategies
Dianne Dillon-Ridgley
Chair
Plains Justice Theodore Roosevelt IV
Chair
Pew Center on Global Climate Change
Seth Farbman
Managing Director, Ogilvy & Mather Worldwide
President
OgilvyEarth
Larry Schweiger
President and CEO
National Wildlife Federation
Amy Fraenkel
Director, Regional Office for North America
United Nations Environment Programme
James Gustave “Gus” Speth
Former Dean of the School of Forestry & Environmental Studies
Yale University
Boyd Gibbons
Former President
Johnson Foundation
Jeremy Symons
Director Global Warming Campaign
National Wildlife Federation
Sherri Goodman
Senior Vice President General Counsel & Corporate Secretary
Center for Naval Analysis
Terry Tamminen
Cullman Senior Fellow and Climate Policy Director
New America Foundation
Van Jones
Board President & Co-Founder
Ella Baker Center for Human Rights
Heidi VanGenderen
Director of Regional and National Outreach
American Council on Renewable Energy (ACORE)
L. Hunter Lovins
President
Natural Capitalism Solutions
Carol Werner
Executive Director
Environmental and Energy Study Institute
Erin Meezan
Vice President Sustainability
Interface, Inc.


71 posted on 02/02/2012 10:35:08 AM PST by Postman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: headstamp 2; All
Yeah, for money for their blasted carbon credit scheme.

THE SHOREBANK, OBAMA, CHICAGO CLIMATE EXCHANGE SCAM!

Shorebank didn't close even though it was reported. It's still open under another name.

72 posted on 02/02/2012 10:39:08 AM PST by tutstar (Want pings to Aaron Klein articles and OWS nonsense?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: pgkdan
"No, I'm not. Newt co-sponsored the bill in 1987. Thank goodness Reagan vetoed it."

Things have changed since 1987. Back then conservative talk programs were just coming on to the scene in a big way. The Fairness Doctrine back then most likely would have benefitted conservatives. Not so today, 25 years later.

73 posted on 02/02/2012 10:48:55 AM PST by lwoodham (Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: pgkdan
At the time that Newt did this, talk radio as we know it now did not exist. At that time, the ACU and other very well known conservatives agreed with him. It is intellectually dishonest to take an act out of the context of when it occurred.

So yes, you were being intellectually dishonest.
74 posted on 02/02/2012 10:53:11 AM PST by Sudetenland (Anybody but Obama!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Antoninus

I don’t think I agree with that.


75 posted on 02/02/2012 10:56:16 AM PST by tutstar (Want pings to Aaron Klein articles and OWS nonsense?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: MinuteGal

BTTT....


76 posted on 02/02/2012 10:56:21 AM PST by mickie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: tutstar

TV is 99% leftist, why don’t they try balancing that?


77 posted on 02/02/2012 11:04:33 AM PST by GeronL (The Right to Life came before the Right to Pursue Happiness)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lwoodham
Things have changed since 1987. Back then conservative talk programs were just coming on to the scene in a big way. The Fairness Doctrine back then most likely would have benefitted conservatives. Not so today, 25 years later.

That doesn't matter. I don't oppose the Fairness Doctrine because it would harm conservatives, I oppose it because it would harm liberty and is inconsistent with the First Amendment. That was as true in 1987 as it is today, and the fact that it would have politically benefitted conservatives was no excuse for supporting it. Either we defend the Constitution or we don't, and supporting an unconstitutional policy because it would help "our" side is about as far from defending the Constitution as you can get.

78 posted on 02/02/2012 11:07:03 AM PST by Conscience of a Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: tutstar

When facts aren’t on your side, silence the opposition

That is how tyrants operate


79 posted on 02/02/2012 11:07:03 AM PST by GeronL (The Right to Life came before the Right to Pursue Happiness)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: tutstar

Well I don’t know,Jesus probably wants him to do this also.
He will probably quote something from the bible,Thou shall not bear false witness,so I am reinstating the Fairness Doctrine.


80 posted on 02/02/2012 11:12:53 AM PST by ballplayer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory
Citizens United Decision would be in conflict with that mere policy.

The SC also said in Citizens United that the FCC has no power over the internet.

And yet, the FCC took it anyway. :)
81 posted on 02/02/2012 12:24:40 PM PST by Tzimisce (Never forget that the American Revolution began when the British tried to disarm the colonists.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: tutstar

Even if they don’t bring back the Fairness Doctrine, these constant threats to bring it back stifles descent on the airwaves. Look at how mealy mouthed our best talk show hosts have been this election; Rush, Michael Savage, Drudge, etc, all afraid to come out against Romney or outright endorsing him.


82 posted on 02/02/2012 1:59:05 PM PST by Bizhvywt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Fresh Wind

Interesting tidbit about the ‘Peoples Receiver’ or ‘Goebbels’ Snout’!

Fixture in all old WWII spy thrillers.


83 posted on 02/02/2012 5:40:36 PM PST by RitchieAprile
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: brownsfan

Horzekrep

. Talkradio is not “pro -RINO”. It is conservative, anti-demlibs. It is for the more conservative person/position. If we don’t nominate the most conservative, that’s our fault, not talkradio’s !


84 posted on 02/02/2012 8:47:10 PM PST by MindBender26 (New Army SF and Ranger Slogan: Vengeance is Mine, sayeth the Lord.... but He subcontracts!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: brownsfan

Horzekrep

. Talkradio is not “pro -RINO”. It is conservative, anti-demlibs. It is for the more conservative person/position. If we don’t nominate the most conservative, that’s our fault, not talkradio’s !


85 posted on 02/02/2012 8:47:40 PM PST by MindBender26 (New Army SF and Ranger Slogan: Vengeance is Mine, sayeth the Lord.... but He subcontracts!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: tutstar

And didn’t he state in his State of the Union address that he wants the Navy to have some sort of role in energy to homeowners? Right now I forget the details but doesn’t that smack of military having control of the running of one’s home?


86 posted on 02/02/2012 9:02:06 PM PST by 3catsanadog (Scats for Newt!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: tutstar

I’ll comment on this proposal but I’m not willing to “endorse” any particular solution. It isn’t my job.


87 posted on 02/02/2012 9:09:07 PM PST by upsdriver (We Tea Partiers need Sarah Palin for president.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TEXOKIE

Thanks for the ping!


88 posted on 02/02/2012 9:26:57 PM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: PIF

Didn’t the left already try to tax people on the “imputed value” of their homes assuming they rented part of it out? I suspect that this gem of legislation is just waiting for an Obama 2nd term to get enacted.

This is just more of the same leftist (communist) crap.

That is why it is VITAL that every single conservative or non-leftie votes AGAINST Obama this November. I don’t care WHO the damned GOP nominee ends up being. We must vote against Obama at all costs.


89 posted on 02/02/2012 10:39:09 PM PST by XenaLee (The only good commie is a dead commie.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Sudetenland

I’m more inclined to go with criminally stupid.

Why are so many Santorum supporters determined to alienate those of us who would otherwise be favorably disposed toward their guy? I like Rick....but idiocy like this makes me inclined to revisit that.

Hank


90 posted on 02/02/2012 10:48:26 PM PST by County Agent Hank Kimball (Screw it. Newt's the smartest candidate and the guy I want to see debating Obummer. Flame away.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: tutstar
“National discourse today is tainted – and in some cases poisoned – by unbalanced ideological use of the public airwaves… To improve and better inform public discourse, it is time for the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine.”

Welcome to China.

91 posted on 02/03/2012 1:07:27 AM PST by DNA.2012
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: W. W. SMITH

The term “progressive” is not one conservatives should use to describe those they oppose.

“Progressive” sounds happy:

“Yay progress!”


92 posted on 02/03/2012 1:10:36 AM PST by DNA.2012
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: tutstar

Yeswise, airways unfor crimethink.


93 posted on 02/03/2012 2:42:39 AM PST by seton89 (Starve the Beast)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: XenaLee

I don’t care WHO the damned GOP nominee ends up being. We must vote against Obama at all costs.

True. However, there seems to be a large contingent here on FR that will stay home, vote third party, or pull the lever for Obama, rather than vote for Mittens ... regardless of the cost to the rest of us or the destruction of the country.

They seem to style themselves as die-hard conservatives and strict Republicans.


94 posted on 02/03/2012 4:29:22 AM PST by PIF (They came for me and mine ... now it is your turn ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: lonestar

Nixon didn’t last long in his second term. There is hope for history repeating itself if THE 1 is re-elected.


95 posted on 02/03/2012 6:53:31 AM PST by NCC-1701 (In Memphis on January 20, 2009, pump price were $1.49. We all know what happened after that.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: NCC-1701

The MSM played a BIG part in getting Nixon out. They wouldn’t contribute to exposing and running Obama out of office.


96 posted on 02/03/2012 7:46:04 AM PST by lonestar (It takes a village of idiots to elect a village idiot.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-96 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson