Clear Channel CEO Responds to Reid (Letter Hand Delivered to Senate)

I asked you to cite a case because you stated as a fact that there were cases that supported your argument, and so it seemed a pretty easy thing for you to give me the names of such cases. I looked up the Foretich case you cited, and right away I realized that you are WAYYYYYYY wrong. The Foretich case involved a law passed by Congress that involved a dispute between two parents of a minor child. Congress made, as the court described it, a "feeble attempt" to couch the law in general terms, but the law clearly was aimed at the Foretich case.

It was passed as a legislative rider to a transportation act. It was a LAW.

A resolution of the senate has no status as a law. It can provide a "sense of the senate", or if jointly done with the house a "sense of the Congress", but it does not have a binding effect on anyone. It's the same as if a bunch of Senators joined together on the capitol steps and started shouting in the direction of the White House, or in this case, towards Florida. It has the same force and effect as when Chuckie Schumer grabs a mike and starts bloviating, and then several rats then join in behind him....i.e., none at all.

Since it is not a "law", it cannot be a "bill of attainder", failing the requirement that it be a "bill".

You are clearly not an attorney, and for that reason your confusion is natural, but your self confidence is misplaced. No doubt I am arrogant, but in this instance, in any event, I am also correct.

I was listening to Rush on the day of his conversation with the caller and took what he said exactly for what he meant..it’s called comprehension.

The agenda of the democrats, led by Hitlery no doubt, is to shut down conservative talk, be it on the radio or tv. They had control of the media so long that they can’t handle the truth being told, doesn’t fit with their plan of controlling people and what they want people to think.

As to the uninformed out there, like my sister-in-law (and my own sister), who said a couple of years ago about our military death toll, that more of our soldiers had died in Iraq than had died in WWII. I enlightened her with one example and said that in WWII there were 6,000 or more lost in ONE battle IN ONE MORNING. Her response was ‘oh, you know so much about that kind of stuff’ and she changed the subject. Unlike her, I did not have my head in my desk when in school. The extent of stupidity out there is scarey, scarey in that these people vote. I am of average intelligence, no college, but I am also blessed with common sense. My sister, through her sips of beer, just repeats that ‘our kids have to come home’ and she watches The View religiously. She was an anti-Vietnam teenager, older than me, but many years younger in her foggy brain. Her husband (a big know-it-all type, and women know nothing type) said to me a while back that we shouldn’t be in Iraq. I said to him that it’s better we fight the terrorists there than over here. He had no further responses or input. Well, I’ve knocked my relatives plenty now, lol. Good thing they don’t even know about Free Republic!

Geraldo was on Hannity & Colmes tonight saying that Rush should apologize andhe compared Rush to the Swiftboat ‘attack’ on poor little Jon Cary (misspelled deliberately there!). Sean tried to talk over the ranting Geraldo with the truth, he wasn’t too successful. Geraldo and his opinion in the big scheme of things means nothing to me, but to hear more stupidity is just so aggravating.

Geraldo and his opinion in the big scheme of things means nothing to me, but to hear more stupidity is just so aggravating.

It is aggravating. So much so, I could curse.

In fact, just a few days ago, I put forward the notion that the quickest and best way for conservatives to get their message heard above the din is to start and finish each address by telling the media/dems/libs/and other assorted idiots to f*** off.

I was told such a thing would be crude and a misrepresentation of conservatism.

I understand but disagree. I'm not arguing that it isn't crude. It is. But conservative politicians should crank it up a notch. Return fire.

I don't say this because I'm itching to see them use foul language, but because looking at the counteragent and telling them to f*** off (or something to that extent) is an efficient and effective way to get the attention of the dem/lib/idiot being addressed AND perhaps more importantly of those that tend to tune out (for whatever reason) matters regarding anything outside their normal scope of day to day life.

People are drawn to a scene like moths to a flame.

Case in point- Perhaps you're driving down a highway, making good time, and must suddenly slow to a crawl. Why? Two cars collided and the traffic in front of you wants to make sure they get a good look at what happened. I recall that George Carlin once mused that the job of the police is to protect, to serve, and bring the bodies a little closer.

Another example- June 17, 1994. It's game five between the NY Knicks and the Houston Rockets. Suddenly the game is interrupted because some former NFL player is engaged in a slow speed chase from the LAPD. Somone at tv central knew that, basketball be dammed, we'd want to see if the juice was going to make it to TJ. They even split the screen so we could still watch the game!

And probably the most fitting example- Cheney Dismisses Critic With Obscenity.

Then again, telling someone to f*** off (or something to that extent) is also a good way to get your tail kicked. So I don't advise leaving it at that. Such language should be used sparingly, less it lose it's luster. Reserve it for the most foul among them. And there are ways it can be said that would seem less brutal or crude, for example: "kindly go f*** yourself" or "without putting too fine a point on it, f*** off", etc.

Even with the polite spin, the message is heard loud and clear.

The media will still stumble over each other to get the word out, sell more air time, and so on.

Katie or Matt will run an expose on the history of foul language, trying to make sense of it all between commercials for new cars at 0% finance and the next new ipod.

And Mr. and Mrs. Tune-it-all-out will finally raise their heads and ask "what did he just tell that scary looking woman from california to do?"

And more importantly, "Why?".

You are clearly not an attorney, and for that reason your confusion is natural, but your self confidence is misplaced. No doubt I am arrogant, but in this instance, in any event, I am also correct.

You are wrong on every count, except that you are falsely arrogant, and it was very easy to bait you into that simple debating trap.

Now its case closed on you. - Goodbye and good luck in your future endeavors.

There is no further point in debating you, so it is on to someone who actually might know what he is talking about rather than casting nets hoping to find a fish.

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.