# GENERAL FORUM > IN THE NEWS >  President Bush Booed At Baseball Game

## Carlos_E

President Bush threw out the ceremonial first pitch tonight at the Washington Nationals season opener and the inaugural game at Washington's National Ballpark. But the President  an avid baseball fan and the former owner of the Texas Rangers  probably didn't get the fan response he was hoping for, as he was largely booed by the 41,000-person sellout crowd as he walked out to throw the pitch.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qHUAsTrl4JI

 :LOL:

----------


## MuscleScience

I heard more cheers than boo's?

----------


## lotaquestions

it sucks the braves lost

----------


## SMCengineer

Haha, that sucks. Kinda feel bad for the guy.

----------


## kfrost06

Pretty tasteless to boo the President at the game and of course it was a vocal minority. It never ceases to amaze me the amount of anger and hate liberals have.

----------


## Carlos_E

> Pretty tasteless to boo the President at the game and of course it was a vocal minority. It never ceases to amaze me the amount of anger and hate liberals have.


What makes you think it's liberals? Last time I checked his approval rating was low across the board.

----------


## IronReload04

if you ask me......cheering him is the tasteless act!!!!!!!!!

----------


## lotaquestions

welcome to america, where we even boo santa clause, cant make everyone happy

----------


## Tock

Cheers or boos aside, shouldn't he have waited until a batter was at the plate before throwing the ball?

What's up with that?

----------


## Tesla

> What makes you think it's liberals? Last time I checked his approval rating was low across the board.


And the Democratic lead Congress' approval rating is even lower.

----------


## SMCengineer

It was a pretty decent throw.

----------


## lotaquestions

they should have a polititican softball game. it would be cool to see how competitive they are and how bad they suck.

----------


## SMCengineer

> they should have a polititican softball game. it would be cool to see how competitive they are and how bad they suck.


Congress does have one I believe.

----------


## lotaquestions

keep me posted when it is coming up

----------


## Carlos_E

> And the Democratic lead Congress' approval rating is even lower.


I don't see anyone booing congress.

----------


## BigLittleTim

> Pretty tasteless to boo the President at the game and of course it was a vocal minority. It never ceases to amaze me the amount of anger and hate liberals have.


Remember how you and other conservatives felt every time you saw President Bill Clinton, or heard his name?

Multiply that by *INFINITY* and you've got what liberals feel about G.W. Bush.

-BigLittleTim

----------


## Rider

Bush is a clown , that simple

----------


## RA

Not the ceremonial first pitch tock....and if you boo the president of the United States your an idiot. If I was in the crowd and Clinton came out I wouldnt cheer or boo. It reminds me of little kids.







> Cheers or boos aside, shouldn't he have waited until a batter was at the plate before throwing the ball?
> 
> What's up with that?

----------


## SMCengineer

> *and if you boo the president of the United States your an idiot*.


Why?

----------


## RA

Hes the president. People should show some respect and not act like children.




> Why?

----------


## RA

There used to be ideals like politics stops at the waters edge when it came to the lives of our military men and women...you dont boo the president because the office commands respect...things like that. I know thats gone out the window in this day and age but hopefully someday people will realize that we should act better.

----------


## SMCengineer

Last I checked, one of the greatest things about this country is that if your dissatisfied with what a politician is doing you not only have a right to dissent you have an obligation as a citizen. That's what this country was founded on. Now, I'm sure if they could, the people who were booing would of otherwise politely told him of their dissatisfaction. Unfortunately, the situation didn't permit that kind of interaction. Further, respect is not something that's demanded it's something that's earned and some people in the crowd thought he didn't deserve it. Whether he deserved to be booed or not is subjective, but to say that booing is childish or idiotic is saying that if you disagree with a leader you should keep your mouth shut. That would be ten times worse.

Oh, and if Clinton was there I'd have booed head off not sat back in silence.

----------


## Flagg

YouTube have removed the video. Guess Bush got a lil crushed by the backlash.

----------


## Amorphic

> Hes the president. People should show some respect and not act like children.


just because someone is the president doesnt mean he deserves respect....especially bush.

----------


## LawMan018

> Pretty tasteless to boo the President at the game and of course it was a vocal minority. It never ceases to amaze me the amount of anger and hate liberals have.


Yeh guys come on... Can't we put aside the war he lied to us about, the amount of money our country is in debt because of him, wire-tapping, etc, just for one happy ball game?

----------


## Carlos_E

> Hes the president. People should show some respect and not act like children.


Respect is earned.

----------


## tadpoleboyy

have you heard the speeches he gives? People audibly laugh at the things he says. You ever heard the one wheres he was asked about sovereignty and native americans and the treaties that were signed? He doesnt even know what the fvckn word means. These people get screwed out of their land and he just dicks around with some buzzwords and its just a joke... http://youtube.com/watch?v=W28CQQsH9S8
When i hear him talk, and remember that he represents and entire country, the country that i live in. i feel embarrassed. Sometimes i even feel physically flushed, because he just makes us look like shit sometimes.

Id boo him in a second

----------


## Amorphic

new link

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O6CmUC1svmc

----------


## BigLittleTim

"In England the Head of State is known as _Her Britannic Majesty_. In the United States he is known as _The Goddamned President._"

-Gore Vidal


BigLittleTim

----------


## BigLittleTim

The _Ministry Of Truth_ edited the audio on this clip:  :Wink/Grin: 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RxR8w...eature=related

-BigLittleTim

----------


## RA

I knew some libs would come on here and poo poo what I said. To you showing respect must be like speaking greek.

----------


## SMCengineer

^^So your saying freedom of speech is liberal propaganda?

----------


## Peducho0113

Poor President Bush everytime I hear the State of Union Speech I LMAO!!!

----------


## tadpoleboyy

roidattack, do you listen to his speeches? Do they not make you feel embarrased, knowing that that man represents you? Not only you, but a whole nation? The things he says... ugh

----------


## ***xxx***

> There used to be ideals like politics stops at the waters edge when it came to the lives of our military men and women...you dont boo the president because the office commands respect...things like that. I know thats gone out the window in this day and age but hopefully someday people will realize that we should act better.


yeah, and there used to be times when idiots were not elected to be president - I guess things have changed :Aajack:

----------


## Oki-Des

They did that because he chose not to pitch to someone on the aas list. If he would have pitched to him, the Democrats would have attacked him. He was going to be bashed for it no matter what he did, and he chose to pick the lesser of the two evils in his own mind. 
Its part of politics nowadays.

----------


## RA

Did I mention freedom of speech? Just because you have the right to say something doesnt mean your not an idiot for saying it.




> ^^So your saying freedom of speech is liberal propaganda?

----------


## RA

In your opinion hes an idiot and thats fine. Im addressing showing respect for the President of the United States only.





> yeah, and there used to be times when idiots were not elected to be president - I guess things have changed

----------


## RA

Im not sure what else one could do to earn respect than get elected to the highest office in our country.




> Respect is earned.

----------


## SMCengineer

> Did I mention freedom of speech? *Just because you have the right to say something doesnt mean your not an idiot for saying it.*


True, but just because you disagree with what someone is saying doesn't make them an idiot either.

----------


## BITTAPART2

> Im not sure what else one could do to earn respect than get elected to the highest office in our country.


got a point there, *you cant chose your parents*! 





the guy was born into the presidency like a prince, hes an idiot, I have no respect for him, I have anomosity towards him and I want him GONE, he can go live in Saudi Arabia with his buddies and have naked crude oil wrestling contests.

----------


## Prada

In the spirit of being booed. He gets no respect either.

http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Ashcro...E%5D_0404.html

----------


## kfrost06

It boggles my mind how liberals can function with so much hate and anomosity. Do you guys wake up angry everyday? Do you feel it necessary to spread your hate in everything you say and do. I am sure glad I don't waste my life being so angry, cheer up it will do you wonders!

----------


## SMCengineer

^^how does that have to do with being liberal or conservative?

----------


## RA

So your saying we shouldnt show _some_ respect to the President whether they be Rep, Dem, or Ind?

Like I said, I wouldnt have booed Clinton either.





> True, but just because you disagree with what someone is saying doesn't make them an idiot either.

----------


## RA

Well in general liberals have no respect for any kind of tradition, like the couple things I mentioned, and he has a point-every lib I know is terribly unhappy and usually full of hate.





> ^^how does that have to do with being liberal or conservative?

----------


## SMCengineer

> So your saying we shouldnt show _some_ respect to the President whether they be Rep, Dem, or Ind?
> 
> Like I said, I wouldnt have booed Clinton either.


That's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that whether you think the president deserves respect or not is subjective not absolute and obviously those people in the stands didn't think that he deserved it. If people want to voice their dissent, for whatever reason, they should and they're not idiots because of it. In fact, they're most likely doing because of their love for the country, first and foremost, and they feel that the president is doing something they don't approve of. I, personally, have a much greater respect for my country than I do for the politicians who run it.

Like I said, if it was Clinton I would have booed. Especially if it was Hillary. How can you respect someone that wants to do what's she has planned to this country?

----------


## Amorphic

> Well in general liberals have no respect for any kind of tradition, like the couple things I mentioned, and he has a point-every lib I know is terribly unhappy and usually full of hate.


a lot of 'traditions' are out dated and irrelevant in modern times.

i'm a pretty happy liberal, then again, I live in Canada  :Wink/Grin:

----------


## RA

> That's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that whether you think the president deserves respect or not is subjective not absolute and obviously those people in the stands didn't think that he deserved it. If people want to voice their dissent for whatever reason they should and they're not idiots because of it. In fact, they're most likely doing because of their love for the country first and foremost and they feel that the president they think he should. I, personally, have a much greater respect for my country than I do for the politicians who run it.
> 
> Like I said, if it was Clinton I would have booed. Especially if it was Hillary. How can you respect someone that wants to do what's she has planned to this country?


If she was elected president theres no way I would boo her..but I was talking about Bill :Wink/Grin: 





> a lot of 'traditions' are out dated and irrelevant in modern times.
> 
> i'm a pretty happy liberal, then again, I live in Canada


 
#1 Typical lib response. Is there anything a liberal will show respect to? Other than the sierra club.. :AaGreen22: 

#2 Ill have to take your word for it..since I only know you on here..

----------


## BgMc31

> So your saying we shouldnt show _some_ respect to the President whether they be Rep, Dem, or Ind?
> 
> Like I said, I wouldnt have booed Clinton either.


Maybe we should, maybe we shouldn't. But it doesn't make someone an idiot for not showing him respect.

And Kfrost, expressing displeasure in an elected figure publicly isn't a liberal trait but a human trait. Being 34yrs old, I expressly remember some serious anger expressed at President Clinton during his tenure. Stop being a hyprocrite!

----------


## BITTAPART2

> Well in general liberals have no respect for any kind of tradition, like the couple things I mentioned, and he has a point-every lib I know is terribly unhappy and usually full of hate.


and conservatives always generalize and bunch things together to make it easier to understand things in their own conservative world of illusion. Hate to me is war and greed that involves ruining other peoples lives, that i think is the outrage. you can only push someone so far b4 they push back

----------


## BgMc31

> #1 Typical lib response. Is there anything a liberal will show respect to? Other than the sierra club..


There is plenty that liberals show respect to. And there are many traditions libs hold dear in this country. Its the perception of those traditions that we differ on. Libs hold the separation of Church and State dear. Libs hold the freedom of religion dear (not just freedom for Christians like conservatives). Freedom of speech (even if its hate filled or Anti-American). The list goes on and on. So don't try to paint with such a broad stroke.

----------


## BgMc31

Oh and if I recall correctly there are n awfully large number of conservatives, republicans, and independents who aren't happy with Bush either. I guarantee it wasn't just liberal and Democrats booing him.

----------


## SMCengineer

> Oh and if I recall correctly there are n awfully large number of conservatives, republicans, and independents who aren't happy with Bush either. I guarantee it wasn't just liberal and Democrats booing him.


That's correct.

----------


## Prada

> a lot of 'traditions' are out dated and irrelevant in modern times.
> 
> i'm a pretty happy liberal, then again, I live in Canada


Liberal party of Canada or just a happy liberal?

----------


## Amorphic

> Liberal party of Canada or just a happy liberal?


the liberal party is in shambles, Dion's leadership is laughable.

i cant really say i support any political parties in Canada, if it was up to me i would abolish the whole parliament system.

why the hell should my tax dollars pay for a government that is useless in a minority setting? why should these "traditional" parliamentary roles such as 'speaker of the house' etc even exist?

to me the wastefulness and uselessness of a parlimentary system is absolutely nausiating.

canada may be a progressive society (in tolerance, racial relations etc) but we are in the stone ages when it comes to having a government that can actually DO SOMETHING.

----------


## tadpoleboyy

i think Bush and his awful speeches are very insulting to anyone who is educated to some degree. I dont think it matters if you are lib. or conservative. He is the president, and he should, at very least, know how to compose and present a intelligent speech. Ok- other people write most of them, which is probably why he falters when it comes to answering questions. The things he says are insulting to any intelligent person that he represents. Theres are a lot of people besides liberals that hate him, namely, the rest of the world. Should we show respect to Fidel Castro just because he is(was) in control of Cuba?

----------


## Prada

> the liberal party is in shambles, Dion's leadership is laughable.
> 
> i cant really say i support any political parties in Canada, if it was up to me i would abolish the whole parliament system.
> 
> why the hell should my tax dollars pay for a government that is useless in a minority setting? why should these "traditional" parliamentary roles such as 'speaker of the house' etc even exist?
> 
> to me the wastefulness and uselessness of a parlimentary system is absolutely nausiating.
> 
> canada may be a progressive society (in tolerance, racial relations etc) but we are in the stone ages when it comes to having a government that can actually DO SOMETHING.


Yup the liberal party is totally lost. Someone will just replace Dion eventually.

----------


## RA

> There is plenty that liberals show respect to. And there are many traditions libs hold dear in this country. Its the perception of those traditions that we differ on. Libs hold the separation of Church and State dear. Libs hold the freedom of religion dear (not just freedom for Christians like conservatives). Freedom of speech (even if its hate filled or Anti-American). The list goes on and on. So don't try to paint with such a broad stroke.


#1 Libs have twisted the separation of church and state to fit their agenda.

#2 Freedom of speech is certainly not respected by the left in the form of campaign finance reform and the "fairness docterine"..You mean freedom of lib speech.

I paint a broad stroke because it fits brother.

----------


## RA

Im not sure if anyone told you but Castro wasnt democratically elected...at least in the sense that you and I know it.




> i think Bush and his awful speeches are very insulting to anyone who is educated to some degree. I dont think it matters if you are lib. or conservative. He is the president, and he should, at very least, know how to compose and present a intelligent speech. Ok- other people write most of them, which is probably why he falters when it comes to answering questions. The things he says are insulting to any intelligent person that he represents. Theres are a lot of people besides liberals that hate him, namely, the rest of the world. Should we show respect to Fidel Castro just because he is(was) in control of Cuba?

----------


## BITTAPART2

booooo boooo boooooo

the guys an idiot, please nobody stand up for the dumbest man EVER in office.
have you heard his speeches? the guy has no clue, what other president has books published called "bushisms" with allm the made up words he says.

----------


## tadpoleboyy

> Im not sure if anyone told you but Castro wasnt democratically elected...at least in the sense that you and I know it.


The United states is not a democracy, it is a form of republic. Our president is not actually voted into office democratically either, as the electoral college shows. The majority of the population could vote for a candidate and still not have him elected if the electoral college chooses to vote the other way. Remember that next time someone says that every vote counts.

----------


## NATE0406

> The United states is not a democracy, it is a form of republic. Our president is not actually voted into office democratically either, as the electoral college shows. The majority of the population could vote for a candidate and still not have him elected if the electoral college chooses to vote the other way. Remember that next time someone says that every vote counts.


so true.

----------


## Tock

> It boggles my mind how liberals can function with so much hate and anomosity.


Huh . . . you've never been to a Republican Party convention, have you?
The hatred toward Bill Clinton here in Texas in the 1992 and 1996 elections was impressive . . . Lots of his campaign signs were torn down or defaced with the words "Draft Dodger." Bush's campaign signs did not suffer the same problem -- at least, not here in Texas.

----------


## Tock

> #1 Libs have twisted the separation of church and state to fit their agenda.


Not "twisted." Just enforced.
Liberals don't think that tax money should be used to indoctrinate public school children in the ways of Judaism, Christianity, or Islam. What's so bad about that?









> #2 Freedom of speech is certainly not respected by the left in the form of campaign finance reform and the "fairness docterine"..You mean freedom of lib speech.


What's so terrible about the FCC Fairness Doctrine? All it does is make the _publicly owned airwaves_ available to responsible parties representing opposing points of view on controversial topics. 

Rush Lim-baugh and all the other caustic-tongued right-wing talk radio jockeys don't like this sort of thing, because it means that when they say something incredibly stupid on an important topic, then the broadcaster has to make free time available to an opposing point of view. That costs them advertising $$$ time, too. 

Since right-wingnuts monopolize talk radio, and they don't want to share their air-time with knowledgable liberal spokesmen, they're the ones harping against the FCC Fairness Doctrine. Well, screw 'em. They're the biggest supporters of the Bush Crime Family and the Iraq War. They're the ringleaders of the dumbest people in the USA. 
Screw 'em all. 
The airwaves are PUBLIC PROPERTY and do not belong to US Corporations. The airwaves belong to AMERICANS, and as such, Americans deserve to hear opposing views on important topics of public interest.

----------


## SMCengineer

> What's so terrible about the FCC Fairness Doctrine? All it does is make the _publicly owned airwaves_ available to responsible parties representing opposing points of view on controversial topics. 
> 
> Rush Lim-baugh and all the other caustic-tongued right-wing talk radio jockeys don't like this sort of thing, because it means that when they say something incredibly stupid on an important topic, then the broadcaster has to make free time available to an opposing point of view. That costs them advertising $$$ time, too. 
> 
> Since right-wingnuts monopolize talk radio, and they don't want to share their air-time with knowledgable liberal spokesmen, they're the ones harping against the FCC Fairness Doctrine. Well, screw 'em. They're the biggest supporters of the Bush Crime Family and the Iraq War. They're the ringleaders of the dumbest people in the USA. 
> Screw 'em all. 
> The airwaves are PUBLIC PROPERTY and do not belong to US Corporations. The airwaves belong to AMERICANS, and as such, Americans deserve to hear opposing views on important topics of public interest.


While this "sounds" good, it logically and economically doesn't work. Even though the airwaves are public, it's still a business to run a radio station and the owners are in it to make a profit. Consequently, the cost of possible legal fees and loss of advertising leads to self-censorship of controversial subjects. How is that not suppressing freedom of speech? or Do you think limiting freedom of speech is justified when it's suppressing the opposition? Don't be fooled, in the past, the "fairness doctrine" has been used by both the left and the right to silence political opponents.

----------


## RA

Arguing semantics..off topic




> The United states is not a democracy, it is a form of republic. Our president is not actually voted into office democratically either, as the electoral college shows. The majority of the population could vote for a candidate and still not have him elected if the electoral college chooses to vote the other way. Remember that next time someone says that every vote counts.

----------


## RA

> Not "twisted." Just enforced.
> Liberals don't think that tax money should be used to indoctrinate public school children in the ways of Judaism, Christianity, or Islam. What's so bad about that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...


First the separation of church and state was meant to keep govt out of church business, not the other way around as the left would have you think. 

And second, libs hate it that conservatives are winning the war when it comes to talk radio and they are attempting to silence conservatives with this pile of crap "fairness docterine" Its only fair to them because no one in their right mind wants to listen to a lib spewing his/her hate on the radio. So dont give me this "they need alternate viewpoints" Theyve tried libs on the radio....theyre ratings are in the toilet!



..anyway, I guess this is off topic too.

----------


## BITTAPART2

> First the separation of church and state was meant to keep govt out of church business, not the other way around as the left would have you think. 
> 
> And second, libs hate it that conservatives are winning the war when it comes to talk radio and they are attempting to silence conservatives with this pile of crap "fairness docterine" Its only fair to them because no one in their right mind wants to listen to a lib *spewing his/her hate on the radio*. So dont give me this "they need alternate viewpoints" Theyve tried libs on the radio....theyre ratings are in the toilet!
> 
> 
> 
> ..anyway, I guess this is off topic too.


can anyone say Rush Limbaugh? talk about spewing hate, ann coulter anyone? so shock jocks like limbaugh with riiculous opinions expressed as fact are now teaching people things? oh god thats a scary thought, they are all about beating the system not playing by the rules of the system.

----------


## RA

Beating the system? Hes got the highest rated show on radio. There isnt any system to beat...

And dont claim that he spews hate unless youve actually listened. Because if you did you would realize he doesnt do that at all.....





> can anyone say Rush Limbaugh? talk about spewing hate, ann coulter anyone? so shock jocks like limbaugh with riiculous opinions expressed as fact are now teaching people things? oh god thats a scary thought, they are all about beating the system not playing by the rules of the system.

----------


## kfrost06

> Beating the system? Hes got the highest rated show on radio. There isnt any system to beat...
> 
> And dont claim that he spews hate unless youve actually listened. Because if you did you would realize he doesnt do that at all.....


He(Rush) is actually very entertaining and funny. The left tried to imitate his show but with a liberal biased instead of the right biased and it failed miserably. If you ever had the displeasure of listening to it(Al Franken, et al) it was pure hate. They would spew venom and end up yelling about revolution and how much they hate this country and everything it stands for. I think if they did something more along the lines of John Steward it would be much more successful. I like listening to both sides but you take away the humor and fill it with hate you're just not going to get much of an audience.

----------


## tadpoleboyy

i dont associate with any party, but i think think Bush is a poor choice to represent this country. Im happy people voiced their displeasure. People follow politicians too much, and eat up what they say. You all should be very suspicious of anything they say, especially any facts, data and statistics is easily manipulated. Even though Bush sucks, its dumb to really say this and that about him sucking, because there is a lot more than one man pulling the strings, and usually it boils down to money and power (oil). He is from a wealthy powerful family. I would love to see a president in todays world get elected that has come all the way from poverty (or even simple middle class). Of course that will never happen.

----------


## BgMc31

> First the separation of church and state was meant to keep govt out of church business, not the other way around as the left would have you think. 
> 
> And second, libs hate it that conservatives are winning the war when it comes to talk radio and they are attempting to silence conservatives with this pile of crap "fairness docterine" Its only fair to them because no one in their right mind wants to listen to a lib spewing his/her hate on the radio. So dont give me this "they need alternate viewpoints" Theyve tried libs on the radio....theyre ratings are in the toilet!
> 
> 
> 
> ..anyway, I guess this is off topic too.


In regards to your 1st point, just for clarification, are you saying its ok for the church to get involved in govt business but govt can't get involved in church business? What kind of ass backward thinking is that? 

I do listen to both Hannity and Rush, as well as Heidi Harris (all conservatives) and they all spew a bit of hatred themselves. But not nearly as much hatred as Mark Levin and 'the Savage Nation'. If you conservatives are going to villify some liberal for spewing hate, there are many more conservatives talk shows spewing hatred than any liberal on Radio or TV.

But Blome is correct both sides are guilty of trying to silence opposing views. 

But I guess this is a bit off topic. I'm still trying to figure out how booing the president makes you an idiot...

----------


## RA

> In regards to your 1st point, just for clarification, are you saying its ok for the church to get involved in govt business but govt can't get involved in church business? What kind of ass backward thinking is that? 
> 
> I do listen to both Hannity and Rush, as well as Heidi Harris (all conservatives) and they all spew a bit of hatred themselves. But not nearly as much hatred as Mark Levin and 'the Savage Nation'. If you conservatives are going to villify some liberal for spewing hate, there are many more conservatives talk shows spewing hatred than any liberal on Radio or TV.
> 
> But Blome is correct both sides are guilty of trying to silence opposing views. 
> 
> But I guess this is a bit off topic. I'm still trying to figure out how booing the president makes you an idiot...


 
#1 Prayer in school etc.

#2 I would agree on Levin and Savage..not on Rush.

#3 I dont see any conservatives trying to silence libs. Please point that one out.

#4 Hes the elected President of the US. He should be shown some respect. Like I said before, to a lib its probably like Im speaking greek.

----------


## juicy_brucy

> Respect is earned.


Agreed. President or not, Respect is earned...

----------


## BITTAPART2

listen to a republican debate and then a democratic one....how many more issues were talked about in the democratic one? seriously check youtube out and watcht the debates, i have. Dems talk about soo many more issues that are relevant to americans than republicans do. not just iraq this and no taxes that. its things we are missing that we used tom have like education and health care reform and poverty and feeding our children etc.

and as far as the conservatives owning the air waves....why is it then when I tell people I saw this or that on the news and it happens to be negative things about conservatives or peoples actions within their party, do you say that the media is leberal? whatever suits you at the time I guess. make the rules up as we go along.

----------


## kfrost06

> listen to a republican debate and then a democratic one....how many more issues were talked about in the democratic one? seriously check youtube out and watcht the debates, i have. Dems talk about soo many more issues that are relevant to americans than republicans do. not just iraq this and no taxes that. its things we are missing that we used tom have like education and health care reform and poverty and *feeding our children* etc.


Feeding our children? 

we need to stop feeding our children, have you seen those fat pigs

Thats the funny thing, you listen to the democrats and they'll have you believe that our children are actually starving and we need more government to feed them, pathetic that people are gullible enough to believe that stuff

----------


## RA

Yes, and every time a Democrat talks my wallet cries. Ever lib candidate has the santa claus syndrome. Guess what bro, we have to pay for all that shit! In Mass they have healthcare for everyone and guess what? It takes over a year if you want to just get a physical. Its been proven that more money isnt the solution for education its the unions but you wont have any democrat touch the teachers unions. You want me to keep going? They give good lip service to issues but the only change they would make is from good to bad.


Im not sure what your second paragraph is trying to say. We were talking specifically about radio. You want to discuss tv?





> listen to a republican debate and then a democratic one....how many more issues were talked about in the democratic one? seriously check youtube out and watcht the debates, i have. Dems talk about soo many more issues that are relevant to americans than republicans do. not just iraq this and no taxes that. its things we are missing that we used tom have like education and health care reform and poverty and feeding our children etc.
> 
> and as far as the conservatives owning the air waves....why is it then when I tell people I saw this or that on the news and it happens to be negative things about conservatives or peoples actions within their party, do you say that the media is leberal? whatever suits you at the time I guess. make the rules up as we go along.

----------


## Tock

> While this "sounds" good, it logically and economically doesn't work. Even though the airwaves are public, it's still a business to run a radio station and the owners are in it to make a profit. Consequently, the cost of possible legal fees and loss of advertising leads to self-censorship of controversial subjects. How is that not suppressing freedom of speech? or Do you think limiting freedom of speech is justified when it's suppressing the opposition? Don't be fooled, in the past, the "fairness doctrine" has been used by both the left and the right to silence political opponents.


Most AM, FM, and TV stations are businesses. If the owners of the business can decide to have a controversial fire-brand doing a talk show and espousing radical views on hot topics, then the owners can budget time for opposing views. They can raise their advertising fees however they like to pay for any $$$ they lose; but chances are, they won't lose much, if any at all. 
Talk shows run a couple minutes of ads, then a program segment, then some more ads. They could just as easily run an opposing viewpoint between those ads, and the talk show host could use the time to go take a leak. 
The ads still run, the station owners get their $$$, the talk show host gets a break, the listeners hear more than one side to an issue, and everybody is happy, except for the folks who don't want the general public to know anything other than what they tell them over the air.
And yes, this applies to both conservative _and_ liberal offenders.

I don't see what the problem is.

----------


## Tock

> First the separation of church and state was meant to keep govt out of church business, not the other way around as the left would have you think.


I heartily disagree.

Inquisitions began way back in the late 1200's, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inquisition and operated by a church-state co-operative process:

1) Someone would be accused of heresy
2) the church would investigate, and when they were found guilty,
3) they would be turned over to the state for punishment.

Convicted heretics had their assets confiscated and divided between both church and state, which also encouraged the tribunals to find the offender guilty. Heretics could (and frequently were) condemned to die.




Witch hunts were not rare in Europe, and in the 1690's Massachusetts had the famous Salem Witch Trials (for a good laugh, check out Rev. Cotton Mather's "authoritative" comments on witches at http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/toc/mo...c/Bur4Nar.html ). That sort of madness didn't subside in America until the Massachusetts Governor issued a decree that prohibited "spectral evidence" from court trials.

When the US Constitution was written in 1787, the authors were well aware of what could happen when the secular government joined forces with the church. They were painfully aware of the European witch-trials of the 1600's and 1700's. They were aware of the historical abuse of a church & state combination that robbed many innocent victims of the Inquisition of their lives and property. So, they wrote an important safeguard to to this age-old problem of Christians turning government into a tool for acheiving its goals:

*Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof* 

This part of the US Constitution came in handy for Brandi Blackbear, a student suspended for 15 days from a Tulsa, Oklahoma school for "hexing" a schoolteacher in 1999. (http://www.aclu.org/religion/schools...s20001026.html ), 


BTW, the Inquisition is still active under a different name (In 1908 the name of the Congregation was changed to "The Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office", which in 1965 was further changed to "Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith",) and was recently headed up by the current Pope RatZinger. Were it not for modern laws prohibiting burning witches and heretics (heretics, blasphemers, and witches all must die, according to the Bible, BTW), Christians would still be enforcing their "Turn or Burn" mandate. 

So, the US Constitution is meant to keep both the secular government out of the church's business, AND to keep the church out of the secular government's business. 



================-
Incidentally, the US Constitution provides other rights to Americans because of the way the Church conducted its "trials."

When a suspected heretic was taken away to jail, they were not told what offense they had committed. Instead, they were simply told to "Confess!" They usually volunteered a long list of minor infractions, which a scribe made note of for later punishment, until they finally confessed to whatever they had been accused of. Along the way, they were subjected to increasingly uncomfortable forms of torture, including "waterboarding."

Because of the abuse from those Christian "trials," we Americans now must be told why we are arrested. 

Just a bit of trivia . . .

====================== 








> And second, libs hate it that conservatives are winning the war when it comes to talk radio . . . Theyve tried libs on the radio....theyre ratings are in the toilet!


That's because liberals don't like to listen to narrow-minded nonsense (I can't listen to Air America for more than a short while). Also, liberals are prosperous enough to be able to afford televisions and FM radios and Ipods and computers, so we are not limited to cheap AM radios like y'all are . . .

----------


## Tock

> Beating the system? He's [Rush Limbaugh] got the highest rated show on radio. There isnt any system to beat...
> 
> And dont claim that he spews hate unless youve actually listened. Because if you did you would realize he doesnt do that at all.....


Adolph Hitler was the "highest rated" German politician in the 1930's. 

Popularity doesn't mean anything . . .

Matthew 7:13 -- *for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:*

----------


## Tock

> #1 Prayer in school etc.


So . . . are you saying that public schools should be allowed to require their students to pray?


================================
Here's the landmark US Supreme Court ruling on the *Abington Township School District v. Schempp* case . . .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abingto...ict_v._Schempp 

*Abington Township School District v. Schempp* (consolidated with _Murray v. Curlett_), 374 U.S. 203 (1963), was a United States Supreme Court case argued on February 2728, 1963 and decided on June 17, 1963. In the case, the Court decided 8-1 in favor of the respondent, Edward Schempp, and declared school sponsored Bible reading in public schools in the United States to be unconstitutional. The case was part of a string of Supreme Court cases ruling on the place of religion in public schools, and was both condemned by religious conservatives and celebrated by those who supported constitutional separation of church and state.

Origin of case
The _Abington_ case begun when Edward Schempp, a Unitarian and a resident of Abington Township, Pennsylvania, filed suit against the Abington School District in the Federal District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania to prohibit the enforcement of a Pennsylvania state law that required his children, specifically Ellory Schempp, to hear and sometimes read portions of the Bible as part of their public school education. That law (24 Pa. Stat. 15-1516, as amended, Pub. Law 1928) required that "[a]t least ten verses from the Holy Bible [be] read, without comment, at the opening of each public school on each school day." Schempp specifically contended that the statute violated his and his family's rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. 

When it was brought, this case illustrated for Americans the metamorphosis their society was undergoing. Although many must have disagreed with local school districts conducting organized prayers and Bible readings, only a small minority vocally expressed objection to the statutes mandating those activities. Most U.S. citizens believed that the United States was a nation founded on Christian principles. Yet, in spite of their widely held beliefs, as early as 1890, many states were rolling back mandates of state sponsored devotional exercises in the classroom (Boston, 1993, p. 105).

Like four other states, Pennsylvania law included a statute compelling school districts to perform Bible readings in the mornings before class. Twenty-five states had laws allowing "optional" Bible reading, with the remainder having no laws supporting or rejecting Bible reading. In eleven of those states with laws supportive of Bible reading or state-sponsored prayer, courts had declared them unconstitutional (Boston, 1993, p. 101).
More famous than Schempp was the plaintiff in Murray v. Curlett, the son of Madalyn Murray O'Hair, who founded the group American Atheists in 1963.



*The district court arguments*

During the first District Court trial, Edward Schempp and his children testified as to specific religious doctrines purveyed by a literal reading of the Bible "which were contrary to the religious beliefs which they held and to their familial teaching" (177 F. Supp. 398, 400). The children testified that all of the doctrines to which they referred were read to them at various times as part of the exercises. Edward Schempp testified at the second trial that he had considered having his children excused from attendance at the exercises but decided against it for several reasons, including his belief that the children's relationships with their teachers and classmates would be adversely affected.



* The district court ruling*

The district court ruled in Schempp's favor, and struck down the Pennsylvania statute. The school district appealed the ruling, and while that appeal was pending, the Pennsylvania legislature amended the statute to allow children to be excused from the exercises upon the written request of their parents. This change did not satisfy Schempp, however, and he continued his action against the school district, charging that the amendment of the law did not change its nature as an unconstitutional establishment of religion. (Due to the change in the law, the Supreme Court had responded to the school district's appeal by vacating the first ruling and remanding the case back to the district court.) The district court again found for Schempp. The school district appealed to the Supreme Court again, and, on appeal, the case was consolidated with a similar Maryland case launched by Madalyn Murray (Boston, 1993, p. 106).

The district court ruling in the second trial, in striking down the practices and the statute requiring them, made specific findings of fact that the children's attendance at Abington Senior High School was compulsory and that the practice of reading 10 verses from the Bible was also compelled by law. It also found that:
_The reading of the verses, even without comment, possesses a devotional and religious character and constitutes in effect a religious observance. The devotional and religious nature of the morning exercises is made all the more apparent by the fact that the Bible reading is followed immediately by a recital in unison by the pupils of the_ _Lord's Prayer__. The fact that some pupils, or theoretically all pupils, might be excused from attendance at the exercises does not mitigate the obligatory nature of the ceremony for . . . Section 1516 . . . unequivocally requires the exercises to be held every school day in every school in the Commonwealth. The exercises are held in the school buildings and perforce are conducted by and under the authority of the local school authorities and during school sessions. Since the statute requires the reading of the 'Holy Bible,' a Christian document, the practice . . . prefers the Christian religion. The record demonstrates that it was the intention of . . . the Commonwealth . . . to introduce a religious ceremony into the public schools of the Commonwealth. (201 F. Supp., at 819; quoted in 374 U.S. 203 (1963))_






*Opinions*

The Supreme Court granted certiorari in order to settle the persistent and vigorous protests resulting from its previous decision in _Engel v. Vitale_ regarding religion in schools (White & Zimmerman, p. 70).



*The decision*

Clark continued that the Court was of the feeling that no matter the religious nature of the citizenry, the government at all levels, as required by the Constitution, must remain neutral in matters of religion "while protecting all, prefer[ring] none, and disparag[ing] none". The Court had clearly rejected the contention by many that the Establishment Clause forbade only governmental preference of one faith over another (Eastland, 1993, p. 59).

Citing Justice Hugo Black in _Torcaso v. Watkins,_ Justice Clark added, "We repeat and again reaffirm that neither a State nor the Federal Government can constitutionally force a person 'to *profess a belief or disbelief in any religion'*". Neither can constitutionally pass laws or impose requirements which aid all religions as against non-believers, and neither can aid those religions based on a belief in the existence of God as against those religions founded on different beliefs". Such prohibited behavior was that self-evident in the Pennsylvania law requiring Bible reading (and allowing recitation of the Lord's Prayer) in its public schools. The Court recognized the value of such ideal neutrality from lessons of history when government and religion were either fully fused or cooperative with one another and religious liberty was nonexistent or seriously curtailed.

----------


## Tock

> In Mass they have healthcare for everyone and guess what? It takes over a year if you want to just get a physical.


My little brother lives in Mass, and he doesn't have to wait a year to get a physical. 

Plus, he tells me that Mitt Romney pushed for and signed the "healthcare for everyone" law. He's not much of a liberal . . . or is he?

----------


## SECdominance

dont see how allowing prayer could hurt?. not tryin to push my religion on others but let's get real..Wouldnt this nation be a much safer and morally correct place if more people had Christian priniciples? not sayin they would have to be a Christian ..but if they behaved like one should...All of this gang-related violence and thugs takin innocent lives...Apparently ITS COOL to be like Scarface...Sorry for the hijack in advance....but saw the prayer comment and threw in my 2 cents

----------


## Tock

> dont see how allowing prayer could hurt?. not tryin to push my religion on others but let's get real..


Prayer _is_ allowed. Kids can pray pretty much anytime they want. Before meals, before tests, in study hall, on the play ground. They can even form Bible clubs (like Chess Clubs) to meet after school. 
What more do they want? Government-paid preachers to lead 'em in prayer?








> Wouldnt this nation be a much safer and morally correct place if more people had Christian priniciples?


Not really.
Christians base their principles on the Bible. And the Bible requires that Witches and gays and adulterers and blasphemers be executed. (No kidding)











> not sayin they would have to be a Christian ..but if they behaved like one should...All of this gang-related violence and thugs takin innocent lives...Apparently ITS COOL to be like Scarface...


Ya, that's no good either. 
Seems to me that the best solution would be for the parents to grow up and make the kids behave. I doubt that will happen, though. So, maybe the practical thing to do would be to take all the problem kids and roast them, and serve them to homeless people for Thanksgiving. 











> Sorry for the hijack in advance....but saw the prayer comment and threw in my 2 cents


That's what this thread is here for . . .

----------


## RA

"So, the US Constitution is meant to keep both the secular government out of the church's business, AND to keep the church out of the secular government's business. "


I dont see where youve proven that tock..

----------


## kfrost06

> Prayer _is_ allowed. Kids can pray pretty much anytime they want. Before meals, before tests, in study hall, on the play ground. They can even form Bible clubs (like Chess Clubs) to meet after school.


It's only allowed if it's done in complete silence(for now) soon the government will try to block you from silent prayer too.




> Christians base their principles on the Bible. And the Bible requires that Witches and gays and adulterers and blasphemers be executed. (No kidding)


That's just an out right lie to help you demonize the Bible.







> Ya, that's no good either. 
> Seems to me that the best solution would be for the parents to grow up and make the kids behave. I doubt that will happen, though. So, maybe the practical thing to do would be to take all the problem kids and roast them, and serve them to homeless people for Thanksgiving.


Thats just absurd, what are the vegetarians suppose to eat?

----------


## fdrx7man

> So your saying we shouldnt show _some_ respect to the President whether they be Rep, Dem, or Ind?
> 
> Like I said, I wouldnt have booed Clinton either.


I heart your av!! :Aajack:  :Aajack:

----------


## RA

One person doesnt have a damn thing to do with the other. Stop being a fkn retard. 





> Adolph Hitler was the "highest rated" German politician in the 1930's. 
> 
> Popularity doesn't mean anything . . .
> 
> Matthew 7:13 -- *for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:*

----------


## RA

> So . . . are you saying that public schools should be allowed to require their students to pray?


Not require, allow.

----------


## SMCengineer

> Most AM, FM, and TV stations are businesses. If the owners of the business can decide to have a controversial fire-brand doing a talk show and espousing radical views on hot topics, then the owners can budget time for opposing views. .


Yes, they _can_ budget time for opposing views, but shouldn't be _forced_ to. Not in a free market society anyway. As you said, they're businesses and as such have a right to choose what they offer. Let the free market decide what people want to listen to. It's certainly the best source. 




> They can raise their advertising fees however they like to pay for any $$$ they lose; but chances are, they won't lose much, if any at all. 
> Talk shows run a couple minutes of ads, then a program segment, then some more ads. They could just as easily run an opposing viewpoint between those ads, and the talk show host could use the time to go take a leak. 
> The ads still run, the station owners get their $$$, the talk show host gets a break, the listeners hear more than one side to an issue, and everybody is happy, except for the folks who don't want the general public to know anything other than what they tell them over the air.
> And yes, this applies to both conservative _and_ liberal offenders.
> 
> I don't see what the problem is.


I'm gonna spell this out for you. When you threaten litigation for controversial comments, no matter what the circumstance, you silence dissenters and you *violate first amendment rights*. 

"as a matter of constitutional tradition, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we presume that governmental regulation of the content of speech is more likely to interfere with the free exchange of ideas than to encourage it. The interest in encouraging freedom of expression in a democratic society outweighs any theoretical but unproven benefit of censorship." 
-Reno v. ACLU, 521 U.S. 844, 885 (1997)

The goverment has no jurisdiction to regulate speech! 

It pisses me off that we tend to ignore history and think "it might be better this time around." Sorry, but history _does_ repeat itself.

----------


## tadpoleboyy

Bush still sucks

----------


## ecto9

> #*1 Libs have twisted the separation of church and state to fit their agenda.
> *


Umm, excuse me, but I think the conservatives have been doing that, ie; the religious right. Care to elaborate?

----------


## Mick Jagger

> ...the US Constitution is meant to keep both the secular government out of the church's business, AND to keep the church out of the secular government's business.


The Constitution does nothing more than totally exclude religion from the cognizance of the government.

----------


## Tock

> Yes, they _can_ budget time for opposing views, but shouldn't be _forced_ to. Not in a free market society anyway. As you said, they're businesses and as such have a right to choose what they offer. Let the free market decide what people want to listen to. It's certainly the best source.


If the radio airwaves were private property, I'd agree. But, the radio airwaves are considered public property. Broadcasters are licensed to use those airwaves, and the Federal government does indeed affect what can be broadcast over those airwaves, such as in the government's rule regulating a broadcaster's political commentary:
http://www.fcc.gov/mb/audio/decdoc/p...adcasting.html 

_Political Editorials. A political editorial is when a station endorses or opposes a legally qualified candidate(s) during a broadcast of its own opinion. (The opinions of other people broadcast over the station are referred to as "comments" or "commentary"). Whether a statement of opinion is an editorial or a commentary will usually be made clear at the beginning of the statement. Within 24 hours after the editorial, the station must transmit the following three things to the other qualified candidate(s) for the same office, or to the candidate(s) that were opposed: (1) notification of the date and time of the editorial; (2) a script or tape of the editorial; and (3) an offer of a reasonable opportunity for the candidate or a spokesperson for the candidate to respond on the air._

Nowadays, a broadcaster can legally use its Federal License to transmit 100% anti-(name your politician or issue) as long as it broadcasts the opinions of other people. Without the FCC Fairness Doctrine, it does not have to broadcast more than one side of the dispute. Anyone (or any corporation) with lots of $$$ could pay a FCC license holder to withhold any side of any controversial issue, and the general public that relied on that broadcaster to properly inform him about the issues of the day would be deliberately misled, by a FCC license holder, on airwaves owned by the public.

So . . . if you find you cannot trust what you see in TV news, or on the radio, or whatever, _this_ is one major reason why. 
If a FCC license holder does not like Steroid Users, for instance, the broadcaster is free to broadcast an endless string of opinions from other people saying, "We think steroid users are dangerous people," and "Steroid Users have a much higher rate of child abuse," and "Research shows that Steroid users were working with the Germans in World War 2." Rabidly anti-steroid broadcasters can do this without broadcasting any opposing view from anyone who actually knows what's going on.
And the same situation is true for political candidates, for political issues, for anything. 

IMHO, Americans are not well-served by a government that precludes knowledgeable citizens from challenging falsehoods broadcast on their publicly-owned airwaves. 

Here's an interesting article about what happened to the "public service" in the FCC's regulation of the airwaves, FYI:
http://www.stayfreemagazine.org/ml/r...c_interest.pdf

----------


## Tock

> The goverment has no jurisdiction to regulate speech!


Over the public airwaves, it sure does.

----------


## SMCengineer

> If the radio airwaves were private property, I'd agree. But, the radio airwaves are considered public property. Broadcasters are licensed to use those airwaves, and the Federal government does indeed affect what can be broadcast over those airwaves, such as in the government's rule regulating a broadcaster's political commentary:
> http://www.fcc.gov/mb/audio/decdoc/p...adcasting.html 
> 
> _Political Editorials. A political editorial is when a station endorses or opposes a legally qualified candidate(s) during a broadcast of its own opinion. (The opinions of other people broadcast over the station are referred to as "comments" or "commentary"). Whether a statement of opinion is an editorial or a commentary will usually be made clear at the beginning of the statement. Within 24 hours after the editorial, the station must transmit the following three things to the other qualified candidate(s) for the same office, or to the candidate(s) that were opposed: (1) notification of the date and time of the editorial; (2) a script or tape of the editorial; and (3) an offer of a reasonable opportunity for the candidate or a spokesperson for the candidate to respond on the air._.


First off, we need to clear something up. You keep referring to the airwaves as public airwaves, but I'm not sure you know exactly what that means. The airwaves are not public in the sense of a public park or a public sidewalk. Taxpayers don't pay for the airwaves therefore the government (aka the public) does not own them. The airwaves are more akin to a natural resource. It's available to everyone, but you have to have the ability to harness it (ie a radio tower) and to garner listeners. Liberals tried to compete in radio with AIR America, but they failed terribly. The market is still open, but since liberals can't get a hold on talk radio they want to mandate a spot on it. Is that what you call fair? Fairness already exists!

If you continue to consider the airwaves publically owned as in parks and sidewalks, than let me ask you, can the government regulate speech in public parks and on sidewalks? 

Now, if you wish to keep calling them public airwaves you'll need to explain how the public came to own them.



> Nowadays, a broadcaster can legally use its Federal License to transmit 100% anti-(name your politician or issue) as long as it broadcasts the opinions of other people. Without the FCC Fairness Doctrine, it does not have to broadcast more than one side of the dispute. Anyone (or any corporation) with lots of $$$ could pay a FCC license holder to withhold any side of any controversial issue, and the general public that relied on that broadcaster to properly inform him about the issues of the day would be deliberately misled, by a FCC license holder, on airwaves owned by the public.


Um...you do realize the fairness doctrine was abandoned in 1987 and the FCC no longer has to enforce it, right? The reason it's coming up again is that Democrats in congress want to silence political opposition. If Obama were elected he'd most likely reinstate it.




> So . . . if you find you cannot trust what you see in TV news, or on the radio, or whatever, _this_ is one major reason why.


So once the government gets involved again and starts regulating talk shows, TV, and internet than I should trust the content? Do you realize how ridiculous that sounds? Whatever happened to personal responsibility? Individuals can and should get there news from whatever source they like. If a conservative chooses to listen to a conservative talk show host they shouldn't be _forced_ to listen to liberal rebuttals no matter how fair you think it is. If we forced them to listen to opposing viewpoints it would be a quasi-fascist state. Under the fairness doctrine people would loose their right to listen to hate mongering talk shows. Now, I agree that individuals should get opposing viewpoints, but that's wholeheartedly up to them. If they want to be informed than we have much greater media outlets than just AM talk radio and the liberal media owns most of those outlets. 




> If a FCC license holder does not like Steroid Users, for instance, the broadcaster is free to broadcast an endless string of opinions from other people saying, "We think steroid users are dangerous people," and "Steroid Users have a much higher rate of child abuse," and "Research shows that Steroid users were working with the Germans in World War 2." Rabidly anti-steroid broadcasters can do this without broadcasting any opposing view from anyone who actually knows what's going on.
> And the same situation is true for political candidates, for political issues, for anything.


Bias speech, no matter how hateful, wrong, anti-american, propagandized, anti-religious, pro-religious, pro-war, anti-war, for the troops, against the troops, pro-steroids , against-steroids, etc, etc, *is protected from Congress by the Constitution!*




> IMHO, Americans are not well-served by a government that precludes knowledgeable citizens from challenging falsehoods broadcast on their publicly-owned airwaves.


In a free market, knowledgeable citizens don't have to listen falsehoods broadcast on the radio. They can turn the dial. 




> Over the public airwaves, it sure does.


The Constitution doesn't give the government power to control what is broadcast. The airwaves are owned by noone.

If you do believe the government has the ability to regulate speech I'd advise you to reasearch the first amendment.:

"*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."

----------


## Mike Dura

Nobody is entitled to respect. More on the mark to demand that it's earned. On the other hand, if disrespect is earned (e.g., Bush admin. policies), one is entitled to express it if one should choose. Hence, the boos. To be sure, most appropriate.




> Hes the president. People should show some respect and not act like children.

----------


## Tock

> The Constitution doesn't give the government power to control what is broadcast. The airwaves are owned by noone.


Well, we will just have to disagree on that point, and several others. 

What was this thread originally about, anyway?

----------


## SMCengineer

^^who knows?

----------

