"Ed Huntress" wrote:

I doubt it.
He wants another Maybach and he's tuned in to the Gunner set.
Nothing stupid about that.

I just saw a clip of him on TV from one of his shows recently. He was
yelling and waving his arms like a madman. The guy is manic.



If you were Rush and 400M was on the line I bet you would do what it takes.

Wes
--
"Additionally as a security officer, I carry a gun to protect
government officials but my life isn't worth protecting at home
in their eyes." Dick Anthony Heller

"Wes" wrote in message
...
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

I doubt it.
He wants another Maybach and he's tuned in to the Gunner set.
Nothing stupid about that.

I just saw a clip of him on TV from one of his shows recently. He was
yelling and waving his arms like a madman. The guy is manic.



If you were Rush and 400M was on the line I bet you would do what it
takes.

"Anything for a buck" is not for me.

--
Ed Huntress

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"Wes" wrote in message
...
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

I doubt it.
He wants another Maybach and he's tuned in to the Gunner set.
Nothing stupid about that.

I just saw a clip of him on TV from one of his shows recently. He was
yelling and waving his arms like a madman. The guy is manic.



If you were Rush and 400M was on the line I bet you would do what it
takes.

"Anything for a buck" is not for me.

--
Ed Huntress

I thought you were an Obama supporter? Obama supports the fairness
doctrine - anti free speech. Obama is for more gun control - anti 2nd
amendment. Obama is for the murder, Oh Yeah, excuse me, Killing of innocent
human life for the sake of convienience. And he got the votes for the
economy. The USA has sold out the constitution and moral values in hopes of
a better economy. Give the people what they want, may our money perish with
us.

RogerN

"RogerN" wrote in message
m...

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"Wes" wrote in message
...
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

I doubt it.
He wants another Maybach and he's tuned in to the Gunner set.
Nothing stupid about that.

I just saw a clip of him on TV from one of his shows recently. He was
yelling and waving his arms like a madman. The guy is manic.



If you were Rush and 400M was on the line I bet you would do what it
takes.

"Anything for a buck" is not for me.

--
Ed Huntress

I thought you were an Obama supporter? Obama supports the fairness
doctrine - anti free speech.

Show me where he has supported it. In fact, he has explicitly said he
*doesn't* support it.

We'll stop there and wait for you to supply an answer, Roger, and then we
can address the rest if you're still up for it. You way you live on rumors
and talk radio b.s., it's very tedious to talk to you. This time, we'll take
it one step at a time until you see what you're talking about.

--
Ed Huntress

Well, Obama said he was against the fairness doctrine, but then he turns
around and appoints a person to the FCC Chair that is very much for the
fairness doctrine. So, you are right according to Obama's words but I'm
listening to his actions. I am all for fairness but controlling what a
broadcaster broadcasts is as fair as forcing a country music station to play
rap. If the listener wants to hear something else, all they have to do is
change stations.

Now on to abortion. I believe abortion is morally wrong but that's my
beliefs. The government gives something like $300,000,000 of taxpayer money
to fund abortion and a large portion of the money goes to Planned
Parenthood. Planned Parenthood was trying to get the Government to pay for
the medicines that they sell to their customers at up to 1400% profit
margin. Where I see butchered babies, Planned Parenthood sees an
opportunity to get taxpayer money. Obama has plans to give Planned
Parenthood a huge raise.

You mentioned the baby dismemberment that was taking place because of the
ban on partial birth abortion. I'm sure the dismemberment is a horrible
thing but the partial birth abortion, where an instrument is stabbed in the
babies head and it's brains are sucked out and the skull collapsed, doesn't
sound much better. The idea of banning partial birth abortion was to try to
save babies lives, not have the butchers dismember the baby in the mothers
womb.

RogerN


"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"RogerN" wrote in message
m...

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"Wes" wrote in message
...
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

I doubt it.
He wants another Maybach and he's tuned in to the Gunner set.
Nothing stupid about that.

I just saw a clip of him on TV from one of his shows recently. He was
yelling and waving his arms like a madman. The guy is manic.



If you were Rush and 400M was on the line I bet you would do what it
takes.

"Anything for a buck" is not for me.

--
Ed Huntress

I thought you were an Obama supporter? Obama supports the fairness
doctrine - anti free speech.

Show me where he has supported it. In fact, he has explicitly said he
*doesn't* support it.

We'll stop there and wait for you to supply an answer, Roger, and then we
can address the rest if you're still up for it. You way you live on rumors
and talk radio b.s., it's very tedious to talk to you. This time, we'll
take it one step at a time until you see what you're talking about.

--
Ed Huntress

"RogerN" wrote in message
...

Well, Obama said he was against the fairness doctrine, but then he turns
around and appoints a person to the FCC Chair that is very much for the
fairness doctrine. So, you are right according to Obama's words but I'm
listening to his actions.

He hasn't appointed anyone to head the FCC yet. He still has his transition
team working on possible candidates. What kind of stuff are you reading,
Roger?

I am all for fairness but controlling what a broadcaster broadcasts is as
fair as forcing a country music station to play rap. If the listener
wants to hear something else, all they have to do is change stations.

I don't think you'll see Obama try to resurrect the Fairness Doctrine. It
made sense in 1949, when few markets had more than one or two TV stations,
at most, and the question of whether broadcasters should be treated as
common carriers or not raged in the telecommunications field until the '70s.
But that was before cable and the Internet, and isn't taken seriously by
many people today. As far as I know, all Obama has said is that he doesn't
favor it.

Now on to abortion. I believe abortion is morally wrong but that's my
beliefs. The government gives something like $300,000,000 of taxpayer
money to fund abortion and a large portion of the money goes to Planned
Parenthood.

No. Planned Parenthood is prevented from spending federal money for
abortions under Title X. Most of the federal money goes to birth control,
screening and treatment for sexually transmitted diseases, screening for
breast cancer and hypertension, prenatal care, postpartum counseling and
well-baby care. That's most of what they do. Most fundies don't realize
that.

The federal money that does for abortions applies only in cases of rape,
incest, and life-threatening health conditions to the mother, as limited by
the Hyde Amendment. It's a minute fraction of what you quoted.

Planned Parenthood was trying to get the Government to pay for the
medicines that they sell to their customers at up to 1400% profit margin.
Where I see butchered babies, Planned Parenthood sees an opportunity to
get taxpayer money.

More horse****. Let me ask you again: Where do you get this stuff?

Obama has plans to give Planned Parenthood a huge raise.

Tell us about those plans, Roger. What's your basis for this claim?


You mentioned the baby dismemberment that was taking place because of the
ban on partial birth abortion. I'm sure the dismemberment is a horrible
thing but the partial birth abortion, where an instrument is stabbed in
the babies head and it's brains are sucked out and the skull collapsed,
doesn't sound much better. The idea of banning partial birth abortion was
to try to save babies lives, not have the butchers dismember the baby in
the mothers womb.

And it failed to do that because it was a political ploy from the very
beginning. The whole thing has an interesting history.

What they neglected to tell anyone (but which the cynical *******s knew all
along) is that putting an end to ID&E would just switch the practice to
intrauterine dismemberment. The reason ID had lost favor is that it raises
large risks to the mother, including unextracted tissue and frequent tearing
of the uterine walls. I shouldn't have to tell you how dangerous that is. In
any case, it didn't reduce late-term abortions much, if at all. It just made
them more hellish.

Now, you may ask, since you think I spend huge amounts of time here, how
does Huntress know about these things? Regarding the Fairness Doctrine, one
of my degrees is in telecommunications, and I had to debate the doctrine and
write about it around 1970, when it was still hot. My advisor was Dr. John
Abel, former Executive VP of the National Association of Broadcasters, and I
did license-renewal research for him, including documenting Fairness
Doctrine issues.

Regarding abortion and Planned Parenthood, I have a personal interest,
because one of my college roommates was Maureen Paul, now Dr. Maureen Paul,
one of the top experts in ID&E and an executive with Planned Parenthood in
New York and San Francisco in various years, who was under threat from the
fundies for over two years and had to wear a bulletproof vest and had to be
escorted by the FBI to and from work. You should look her up on Google. I
haven't talked to her since but I followed her situation and studied her
work for years, because she was a very important person in my life. She's
conducted a lot of abortions and is one of the most moral and decent people
I've ever known. She'd really stand your preconceptions on their head if you
should meet and talk to her.

I don't spend as much time here as you think. I just type like lightning,
and I learned how to learn and research many years ago, specifically to
communicate accurate information to the people I wrote for, as a magazine
writer. Think of it as the opposite of what those people do that you get
your "facts" from. They're my sworn enemy.

We're done here, Roger. You won't take the time to actually check your
claims, which means I have to do it if we're going to have a conversation.
So we're not going to have any more conversation.

Good luck, good health, and may your blood pressure stay in the healthy
range. g

--
Ed Huntress

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"RogerN" wrote in message
...

snip

Planned Parenthood was trying to get the Government to pay for the
medicines that they sell to their customers at up to 1400% profit margin.
Where I see butchered babies, Planned Parenthood sees an opportunity to
get taxpayer money.

More horse****. Let me ask you again: Where do you get this stuff?

From the Attorneys that try to fight against this kind of stuff.
http://www.aclj.org/

Obama has plans to give Planned Parenthood a huge raise.

Tell us about those plans, Roger. What's your basis for this claim?

snip

Regarding abortion and Planned Parenthood, I have a personal interest,
because one of my college roommates was Maureen Paul, now Dr. Maureen
Paul, one of the top experts in ID&E and an executive with Planned
Parenthood in New York and San Francisco in various years, who was under
threat from the fundies for over two years and had to wear a bulletproof
vest and had to be escorted by the FBI to and from work. You should look
her up on Google. I haven't talked to her since but I followed her
situation and studied her work for years, because she was a very important
person in my life. She's conducted a lot of abortions and is one of the
most moral and decent people I've ever known. She'd really stand your
preconceptions on their head if you should meet and talk to her.


A moral baby butcher? A great person, just like Adolph Hitler. Both into
killing the innocent. You probably would have been Hitlers right hand man
if you were able to. Gotta get rid of them unwanted people.


I don't spend as much time here as you think. I just type like lightning,
and I learned how to learn and research many years ago, specifically to
communicate accurate information to the people I wrote for, as a magazine
writer. Think of it as the opposite of what those people do that you get
your "facts" from. They're my sworn enemy.


They are also the very ones arguing many cases in the Supreme Court and
fighting for the constitutional rights of the Citizens of the USA. If you
want to listen to their broadcast archives you'll find out where I hear this
stuff but they will give all the details that I don't get while driving.
They had the details on the rider that was being slipped in to fund the
medications for Planned Parenthood to sell to those that needed them.


We're done here, Roger. You won't take the time to actually check your
claims, which means I have to do it if we're going to have a conversation.
So we're not going to have any more conversation.

Good luck, good health, and may your blood pressure stay in the healthy
range. g

--
Ed Huntress

"RogerN" wrote in message
...

I'm serious. You quote some figures and then give some vague references to
Pat Robertson's legal organization, with no specifics, nothing that can be
traced to the source, and you expect me to...what, track it down? Believe
that you know what you're talking about? Believe that they publish the
unvarnished truth?

Wrong on all counts, Roger. Now, find someone else's time to waste. As I
said a week or so ago, no one starts a provocative argument like the one you
started here unless he is insecure in his own beliefs and needs to shore
them up by finding someone to argue with. I've shored you up enough.

--
Ed Huntress

I doubt it.
He wants another Maybach and he's tuned in to the Gunner set.
Nothing stupid about that.

I just saw a clip of him on TV from one of his shows recently. He was
yelling and waving his arms like a madman. The guy is manic.



If you were Rush and 400M was on the line I bet you would do what it
takes.

"Anything for a buck" is not for me.

--
Ed Huntress


Have you noticed how working men simply can't relate to people with wealth?
F. Scott Fitzgerald was right after all. They seem to think the wealthy are
just like them and their motivations are the same. For most rich people, and
I mean those with a hundred million or more, getting another big chunk of
dough isn't that important. Look at Ted Turner, Bill Gates, or T. Boone
Pickens. Making more doesn't mean anything to them. But to working stiffs
they seem to think everyone is doing "whatever it takes" to get more. I
guess they'll never get it, which proves why they are working class and will
never be anything else.

Hawke

I doubt it.
He wants another Maybach and he's tuned in to the Gunner set.
Nothing stupid about that.

I just saw a clip of him on TV from one of his shows recently. He was
yelling and waving his arms like a madman. The guy is manic.



If you were Rush and 400M was on the line I bet you would do what it
takes.

"Anything for a buck" is not for me.

--
Ed Huntress

I thought you were an Obama supporter? Obama supports the fairness
doctrine - anti free speech.

Show me where he has supported it. In fact, he has explicitly said he
*doesn't* support it.

We'll stop there and wait for you to supply an answer, Roger, and then we
can address the rest if you're still up for it. You way you live on rumors
and talk radio b.s., it's very tedious to talk to you. This time, we'll
take
it one step at a time until you see what you're talking about.

--
Ed Huntress

Great isn't it how the right wingers are already blaming Obama for all kinds
of things while George Bush is still president and the problems we have are
still his until he leaves office. It does give a forewarning of what they
will be doing after Obama is actually in power. He's in for a continuous
barrage of negativity from the right wing. Lucky for us he knows how to
handle crazy people.

Hawke

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"RogerN" wrote in message
...

Well, Obama said he was against the fairness doctrine, but then he turns
around and appoints a person to the FCC Chair that is very much for the
fairness doctrine. So, you are right according to Obama's words but I'm
listening to his actions.

He hasn't appointed anyone to head the FCC yet. He still has his
transition
team working on possible candidates. What kind of stuff are you reading,
Roger?

I am all for fairness but controlling what a broadcaster broadcasts is
as
fair as forcing a country music station to play rap. If the listener
wants to hear something else, all they have to do is change stations.

I don't think you'll see Obama try to resurrect the Fairness Doctrine. It
made sense in 1949, when few markets had more than one or two TV stations,
at most, and the question of whether broadcasters should be treated as
common carriers or not raged in the telecommunications field until the
'70s.
But that was before cable and the Internet, and isn't taken seriously by
many people today. As far as I know, all Obama has said is that he doesn't
favor it.

Now on to abortion. I believe abortion is morally wrong but that's my
beliefs. The government gives something like $300,000,000 of taxpayer
money to fund abortion and a large portion of the money goes to Planned
Parenthood.

No. Planned Parenthood is prevented from spending federal money for
abortions under Title X. Most of the federal money goes to birth control,
screening and treatment for sexually transmitted diseases, screening for
breast cancer and hypertension, prenatal care, postpartum counseling and
well-baby care. That's most of what they do. Most fundies don't realize
that.

The federal money that does for abortions applies only in cases of rape,
incest, and life-threatening health conditions to the mother, as limited
by
the Hyde Amendment. It's a minute fraction of what you quoted.

Planned Parenthood was trying to get the Government to pay for the
medicines that they sell to their customers at up to 1400% profit
margin.
Where I see butchered babies, Planned Parenthood sees an opportunity to
get taxpayer money.

More horse****. Let me ask you again: Where do you get this stuff?

Obama has plans to give Planned Parenthood a huge raise.

Tell us about those plans, Roger. What's your basis for this claim?


You mentioned the baby dismemberment that was taking place because of
the
ban on partial birth abortion. I'm sure the dismemberment is a horrible
thing but the partial birth abortion, where an instrument is stabbed in
the babies head and it's brains are sucked out and the skull collapsed,
doesn't sound much better. The idea of banning partial birth abortion
was
to try to save babies lives, not have the butchers dismember the baby in
the mothers womb.

And it failed to do that because it was a political ploy from the very
beginning. The whole thing has an interesting history.

What they neglected to tell anyone (but which the cynical *******s knew
all
along) is that putting an end to ID&E would just switch the practice to
intrauterine dismemberment. The reason ID had lost favor is that it raises
large risks to the mother, including unextracted tissue and frequent
tearing
of the uterine walls. I shouldn't have to tell you how dangerous that is.
In
any case, it didn't reduce late-term abortions much, if at all. It just
made
them more hellish.

Now, you may ask, since you think I spend huge amounts of time here, how
does Huntress know about these things? Regarding the Fairness Doctrine,
one
of my degrees is in telecommunications, and I had to debate the doctrine
and
write about it around 1970, when it was still hot. My advisor was Dr. John
Abel, former Executive VP of the National Association of Broadcasters, and
I
did license-renewal research for him, including documenting Fairness
Doctrine issues.

Regarding abortion and Planned Parenthood, I have a personal interest,
because one of my college roommates was Maureen Paul, now Dr. Maureen
Paul,
one of the top experts in ID&E and an executive with Planned Parenthood in
New York and San Francisco in various years, who was under threat from the
fundies for over two years and had to wear a bulletproof vest and had to
be
escorted by the FBI to and from work. You should look her up on Google. I
haven't talked to her since but I followed her situation and studied her
work for years, because she was a very important person in my life. She's
conducted a lot of abortions and is one of the most moral and decent
people
I've ever known. She'd really stand your preconceptions on their head if
you
should meet and talk to her.

I don't spend as much time here as you think. I just type like lightning,
and I learned how to learn and research many years ago, specifically to
communicate accurate information to the people I wrote for, as a magazine
writer. Think of it as the opposite of what those people do that you get
your "facts" from. They're my sworn enemy.

We're done here, Roger. You won't take the time to actually check your
claims, which means I have to do it if we're going to have a conversation.
So we're not going to have any more conversation.

Good luck, good health, and may your blood pressure stay in the healthy
range. g

--
Ed Huntress

After that speil, Ed, one thing is clear. You haven't got any idea what you
are talking about and are some kind of left wing nut. I just wanted to say
that before any of the right wingers got the chance to.


Hawke

On Thu, 13 Nov 2008 22:47:46 -0800, the renowned "Hawke"
wrote:



I doubt it.
He wants another Maybach and he's tuned in to the Gunner set.
Nothing stupid about that.

I just saw a clip of him on TV from one of his shows recently. He was
yelling and waving his arms like a madman. The guy is manic.



If you were Rush and 400M was on the line I bet you would do what it
takes.

"Anything for a buck" is not for me.

--
Ed Huntress


Have you noticed how working men simply can't relate to people with wealth?
F. Scott Fitzgerald was right after all. They seem to think the wealthy are
just like them and their motivations are the same. For most rich people, and
I mean those with a hundred million or more, getting another big chunk of
dough isn't that important. Look at Ted Turner, Bill Gates, or T. Boone
Pickens. Making more doesn't mean anything to them. But to working stiffs
they seem to think everyone is doing "whatever it takes" to get more. I
guess they'll never get it, which proves why they are working class and will
never be anything else.

Hawke

To turn $100 into $110 is work.
To turn $100 million into $110 million is inevitable.
--Edgar Bronfman



Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
--
"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward"
Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com

"Ed Huntress" wrote:

If you were Rush and 400M was on the line I bet you would do what it
takes.

"Anything for a buck" is not for me.


I think Rush would still be doing it at 1M. He actually believes what he says.

Wes

--
"Additionally as a security officer, I carry a gun to protect
government officials but my life isn't worth protecting at home
in their eyes." Dick Anthony Heller

"Ed Huntress" wrote:

He hasn't appointed anyone to head the FCC yet. He still has his transition
team working on possible candidates. What kind of stuff are you reading,
Roger?

I am all for fairness but controlling what a broadcaster broadcasts is as
fair as forcing a country music station to play rap. If the listener
wants to hear something else, all they have to do is change stations.

I don't think you'll see Obama try to resurrect the Fairness Doctrine. It
made sense in 1949, when few markets had more than one or two TV stations,
at most, and the question of whether broadcasters should be treated as
common carriers or not raged in the telecommunications field until the '70s.
But that was before cable and the Internet, and isn't taken seriously by
many people today. As far as I know, all Obama has said is that he doesn't
favor it.


It was in the news that he was leaning toward a supporter of the 'Fairness Doctrine', of
course until he actually is inaugurated and presents his nominations all this is
speculation.

Congress may not provide oversight during his term but a lot of the citizens will paying
attention.

Wes
--
"Additionally as a security officer, I carry a gun to protect
government officials but my life isn't worth protecting at home
in their eyes." Dick Anthony Heller

"Wes" wrote in message
...
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

If you were Rush and 400M was on the line I bet you would do what it
takes.

"Anything for a buck" is not for me.


I think Rush would still be doing it at 1M. He actually believes what he
says.

I don't doubt that at all.

--
Ed Huntress

"Wes" wrote in message
...
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

He hasn't appointed anyone to head the FCC yet. He still has his
transition
team working on possible candidates. What kind of stuff are you reading,
Roger?

I am all for fairness but controlling what a broadcaster broadcasts is
as
fair as forcing a country music station to play rap. If the listener
wants to hear something else, all they have to do is change stations.

I don't think you'll see Obama try to resurrect the Fairness Doctrine. It
made sense in 1949, when few markets had more than one or two TV stations,
at most, and the question of whether broadcasters should be treated as
common carriers or not raged in the telecommunications field until the
'70s.
But that was before cable and the Internet, and isn't taken seriously by
many people today. As far as I know, all Obama has said is that he doesn't
favor it.


It was in the news that he was leaning toward a supporter of the 'Fairness
Doctrine', of
course until he actually is inaugurated and presents his nominations all
this is
speculation.

There has been commentary in the broadcast media that the whole dustup is
the result of something said on a Limbaugh show. Limbaugh's original talk
radio show was "born," more or less, on the back of a 1987 Supreme Court
ruling against the Fiarness Doctrine.

There have always been a few liberals in Congress who favor it. They don't
have much support.


Congress may not provide oversight during his term but a lot of the
citizens will paying
attention.

Of course. And they should. He's not likely to jump on the old liberal
chestnuts but he'll need popular support to keep the libs under control.

--
Ed Huntress

I already listened to the program and they gave the information. Why should
I listen again and take notes for your sake? I did look on their website a
little bit but I didn't instantly find a link to what they talked about and
I was getting tired. I'm not a morning person but my current position has
me getting up before 5AM. I'll try to get the details this weekend if I
don't get called in to work.

Is ACLJ Pat Robertsons legal orginization? Just wondering because I used to
see Jay Seckulo on TBN (owned by Paul and Jan Crouch) years ago.

RogerN

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"RogerN" wrote in message
...

I'm serious. You quote some figures and then give some vague references to
Pat Robertson's legal organization, with no specifics, nothing that can be
traced to the source, and you expect me to...what, track it down? Believe
that you know what you're talking about? Believe that they publish the
unvarnished truth?

Wrong on all counts, Roger. Now, find someone else's time to waste. As I
said a week or so ago, no one starts a provocative argument like the one
you started here unless he is insecure in his own beliefs and needs to
shore them up by finding someone to argue with. I've shored you up enough.

--
Ed Huntress

"Ed Huntress" wrote:

It was in the news that he was leaning toward a supporter of the 'Fairness
Doctrine', of
course until he actually is inaugurated and presents his nominations all
this is
speculation.

There has been commentary in the broadcast media that the whole dustup is
the result of something said on a Limbaugh show. Limbaugh's original talk
radio show was "born," more or less, on the back of a 1987 Supreme Court
ruling against the Fiarness Doctrine.

And it was a great day!


There have always been a few liberals in Congress who favor it. They don't
have much support.

I hope not. I do wonder why seriously liberal commentary on other than NPR doesn't seem
to exist though. Is it a case that conservatives like talk radio and liberals are in to
listening to the latest band on their ipods? There has to be a reason since any pool of
consumers will find someone trying to make a buck on providing them with a product.



Congress may not provide oversight during his term but a lot of the
citizens will paying
attention.

Of course. And they should. He's not likely to jump on the old liberal
chestnuts but he'll need popular support to keep the libs under control.

I sure hope so. The recent thing I heard is that the questionaire for prospective members
of his administration wants to know about firearms ownership. Why?

Wes

"Wes" wrote in message
...
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

It was in the news that he was leaning toward a supporter of the
'Fairness
Doctrine', of
course until he actually is inaugurated and presents his nominations all
this is
speculation.

There has been commentary in the broadcast media that the whole dustup is
the result of something said on a Limbaugh show. Limbaugh's original talk
radio show was "born," more or less, on the back of a 1987 Supreme Court
ruling against the Fiarness Doctrine.

And it was a great day!

You wouldn't have felt that way if we still had the media conditions we had
in the early '50s, and George Soros owned your local radio and TV stations.
g

That's what the Fairness Doctrine, which went into effect in 1949, was based
on. Cable TV diminished the justification for it; the Internet has pretty
well eliminated the rest.



There have always been a few liberals in Congress who favor it. They don't
have much support.

I hope not. I do wonder why seriously liberal commentary on other than
NPR doesn't seem
to exist though.

There is some entertaining stuff on TV now, on MSNBC. Keith Olbermann
("Countdown") can be pretty brutal, and Rachel Maddow is very good with a
sharp scalpal. g

Is it a case that conservatives like talk radio and liberals are in to
listening to the latest band on their ipods? There has to be a reason
since any pool of
consumers will find someone trying to make a buck on providing them with a
product.

There is some information about it, of interest mostly to the people who
plan and buy advertising, and it's based on the demographics. The key issue
appears to be that the core audience for conservative talk radio is fairly
monolithic, and they're angry. They're the Angry Conservative White Men.
There is no comparable large, homogeneous group among liberals.

We could get into a discussion about it, based on audience-study data, but
you wouldn't like it. d8-) You may be surprised to know that Limbaugh's
approval rating is very low according to nationwide surveys -- just slightly
higher than that of George Bush (based on a Rasmussen study conducted last
year, and I think there was at least one other recent study that had similar
results). He has a large enough audience to pull something like 13.5 million
listeners/week (that's what they call the "cume" in radio advertising speak:
the number of people who tuned into radio at least once and at least for
five minutes in an average week) , but that's actually a smallish percentage
of voting-age Americans. They're hard core but, by themselves, they can't
win an election.




Congress may not provide oversight during his term but a lot of the
citizens will paying
attention.

Of course. And they should. He's not likely to jump on the old liberal
chestnuts but he'll need popular support to keep the libs under control.

I sure hope so. The recent thing I heard is that the questionaire for
prospective members
of his administration wants to know about firearms ownership. Why?

I don't know. I didn't hear it. Where did you hear it?

--
Ed Huntress

"RogerN" wrote in message
m...
I already listened to the program and they gave the information. Why
should I listen again and take notes for your sake?

Because, if you're serious about facts and figures, you don't rely on things
you (think) you heard on the radio, without at least providing that caveat.
If you're only serious about propagandizing for your point of view, fire
away. Don't expect it to be believed, however; not because *you* aren't
believed, but because most "sources" in the world today are full of ****,
particularly when they come from partisan news sources. If they can't be
traced, they will be dismissed.

I did look on their website a little bit but I didn't instantly find a
link to what they talked about and I was getting tired. I'm not a morning
person but my current position has me getting up before 5AM. I'll try to
get the details this weekend if I don't get called in to work.

If you think it's worthwhile, go for it. It has the smell of cooked-up
misrepresentation.


Is ACLJ Pat Robertsons legal orginization? Just wondering because I used
to see Jay Seckulo on TBN (owned by Paul and Jan Crouch) years ago.

Pat Robertson founded it. Sekulo was named Director by Robertson, either
when it was founded or shortly thereafter.

--
Ed Huntress

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"RogerN" wrote in message
...


Obama has plans to give Planned Parenthood a huge raise.

Tell us about those plans, Roger. What's your basis for this claim?


This isn't the original I heard on ACLJ but I did some searches on the net
to verify the information.

http://www.plannedparenthoodaction.o...e-side-157.htm

Sen. Obama has sponsored or co-sponsored numerous bills to increase funding
for family planning that will prevent unintended and teen pregnancies.
(Prevention First Act, Communities of Color Teen Pregnancy Act)

Who do you think is going to get this funding for "family planning"?

more-

http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/nov/08110606.html

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/o...for_obama.html


Fairness Doctrine
http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/tim...os-executioner

http://www.reason.com/news/show/129228.html

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.p...w&pageId=80424

http://www.multichannel.com/CA6612005.html

RogerN

"RogerN" wrote in message
m...

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"RogerN" wrote in message
...


Obama has plans to give Planned Parenthood a huge raise.

Tell us about those plans, Roger. What's your basis for this claim?


This isn't the original I heard on ACLJ but I did some searches on the net
to verify the information.

http://www.plannedparenthoodaction.o...e-side-157.htm

Sen. Obama has sponsored or co-sponsored numerous bills to increase
funding for family planning that will prevent unintended and teen
pregnancies. (Prevention First Act, Communities of Color Teen Pregnancy
Act)

Oh, the horror, the horror...imagine preventing teen pregnancies! Does the
man have no morals at all?


Who do you think is going to get this funding for "family planning"?

I don't know. Do you? Or are you letting your imagination take over? It
certainly can't be Planned Parenthood. All they do is abortions. Right?


more-

http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/nov/08110606.html

Another horror. More contraception. This time, without even the states'
right to discriminate base on race! What does he expect, that the states
will comply with decisions by the Supreme Court? What is he, a socialist or
something?

And if you try to tell us that you think use of the morning-after pill is
murder, then you're going on the scrap heap of delusional loony-tunes,
Roger.

Where is the evidence that he's going to increase funding for Planned
Parenthood? Still nothing, still waiting...


http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/o...for_obama.html

"A President Obama would further spread the wealth by reviving prior efforts
to increase funding to Planned Parenthood and similar clinics..."

Another blank assertion. Sheer speculation. No evidence. No statements by
him, nor any indication that he intends to. Are all of these sources making
it up as they go along, or what?



Fairness Doctrine
http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/tim...os-executioner

Roger, your claim was that Obama's "FCC chief" appointment was in favor of
reinstituting the Fairness Doctrine. This is about a guy on his transition
team. As I said, the FCC Commissioner hasn't been appointed yet.


http://www.reason.com/news/show/129228.html

"First the good news: The fairness doctrine is still dead, and it probably
will stay dead even if Barack Obama becomes president. The doctrine, a rule
that gave the government the power to punish broadcasters for being
insufficiently balanced, was killed off 21 years ago. It isn't likely to
return, despite persistent rumors that the regulation's rotting corpse will
crawl from its coffin and disembowel Rush Limbaugh."

If that's what you're presenting in evidence of your claim, you just shot
yourself in the foot.


http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.p...w&pageId=80424

Another discussion about a transition team member, not about the
not-yet-existent FCC Commissioner.


http://www.multichannel.com/CA6612005.html

....And still another one of the same.

Roger, I asked where you came up with the assertion that Obama "has plans to
give Planned Parenthood a huge raise," and what you supplied is guesswork
and empty speculation by some very biased and jaundiced sources -- none of
whom presented a shred of evidence to that effect.

I asked you about the new "FCC chief," and you came up with some articles
about a former Commissioner who is on the transition team.

Do you see why I call this tedious and frustrating? You make empty
assertions with no evidence, accept guesswork as fact, and, in one case, you
even did a Gunner by presenting "evidence" that flatly contradicts your
assertion.

That's it. You're on your own. If you care to respond, go for it. I won't
reply.

--
Ed Huntress

RogerN wrote:

Sen. Obama has sponsored or co-sponsored numerous bills to increase funding
for family planning that will prevent unintended and teen pregnancies.
(Prevention First Act, Communities of Color Teen Pregnancy Act)

Good for him! Fewer unintended pregnancies means fewer abortions, and
You'd have to be a complete IDIOT not to approve of that, no matter what
your political affiliation.


Who do you think is going to get this funding for "family planning"?

People who provide contraceptive materials and education to women who
want to avoid needing abortions?

Hey Roger, the National Association of Evangelicals did a study that
determined that the best way to reduce abortions was to reduce poverty.
a 10% reduction in poverty generates a 30% reduction in abortions,
sound good to you?

On Fri, 14 Nov 2008 21:38:57 -0500, the infamous "Ed Huntress"
scrawled the following:


"Wes" wrote in message
I hope not. I do wonder why seriously liberal commentary on other than
NPR doesn't seem
to exist though.

There is some entertaining stuff on TV now, on MSNBC. Keith Olbermann
("Countdown") can be pretty brutal, and Rachel Maddow is very good with a
sharp scalpal. g

I heard one Olberman rant on the Shrub which had me rolling.


--snip--
We could get into a discussion about it, based on audience-study data, but
you wouldn't like it. d8-) You may be surprised to know that Limbaugh's
approval rating is very low according to nationwide surveys -- just slightly
higher than that of George Bush (based on a Rasmussen study conducted last
year, and I think there was at least one other recent study that had similar
results). He has a large enough audience to pull something like 13.5 million
listeners/week (that's what they call the "cume" in radio advertising speak:
the number of people who tuned into radio at least once and at least for
five minutes in an average week) , but that's actually a smallish percentage
of voting-age Americans. They're hard core but, by themselves, they can't
win an election.

I know a lot of them. Or did in CA.



Congress may not provide oversight during his term but a lot of the
citizens will paying
attention.

Of course. And they should. He's not likely to jump on the old liberal
chestnuts but he'll need popular support to keep the libs under control.

I sure hope so. The recent thing I heard is that the questionaire for
prospective members
of his administration wants to know about firearms ownership. Why?

I don't know. I didn't hear it. Where did you hear it?

My neighbor (who watches the Washington Report or somesuch every
morning and Lou Dobbs every evening) mentioned that Obama had
something like a SEVENTY FIVE PAGE employment questionnaire for
everyone to sign. I can't _wait_ to see a copy of it online
somewhere. There are sure to be some yummy questions asked, wot?

--
If we all did the things we are capable of doing,
we would literally astound ourselves.
-- Thomas A. Edison

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 14 Nov 2008 21:38:57 -0500, the infamous "Ed Huntress"
scrawled the following:


"Wes" wrote in message
I hope not. I do wonder why seriously liberal commentary on other than
NPR doesn't seem
to exist though.

There is some entertaining stuff on TV now, on MSNBC. Keith Olbermann
("Countdown") can be pretty brutal, and Rachel Maddow is very good with a
sharp scalpal. g

I heard one Olberman rant on the Shrub which had me rolling.


--snip--
We could get into a discussion about it, based on audience-study data, but
you wouldn't like it. d8-) You may be surprised to know that Limbaugh's
approval rating is very low according to nationwide surveys -- just
slightly
higher than that of George Bush (based on a Rasmussen study conducted last
year, and I think there was at least one other recent study that had
similar
results). He has a large enough audience to pull something like 13.5
million
listeners/week (that's what they call the "cume" in radio advertising
speak:
the number of people who tuned into radio at least once and at least for
five minutes in an average week) , but that's actually a smallish
percentage
of voting-age Americans. They're hard core but, by themselves, they can't
win an election.

I know a lot of them. Or did in CA.



Congress may not provide oversight during his term but a lot of the
citizens will paying
attention.

Of course. And they should. He's not likely to jump on the old liberal
chestnuts but he'll need popular support to keep the libs under control.

I sure hope so. The recent thing I heard is that the questionaire for
prospective members
of his administration wants to know about firearms ownership. Why?

I don't know. I didn't hear it. Where did you hear it?

My neighbor (who watches the Washington Report or somesuch every
morning and Lou Dobbs every evening) mentioned that Obama had
something like a SEVENTY FIVE PAGE employment questionnaire for
everyone to sign. I can't _wait_ to see a copy of it online
somewhere. There are sure to be some yummy questions asked, wot?

It's 7 pages. g I just got a missive from the NRA that analyzes the gun
question like a literary exegesis, but which comes to no conclusion except
they don't like Obama asking questions about guns.

All of the questions are fairly intrusive and have raised some eyebrows. In
the case of the gun question, it looks like they're trying to ferret out
people who have committed a crime with a gun or who are living in a state of
gun crime, which is something like a state of sin.

It's something to keep an eye on but the gun ain't smoking yet.

This article explains it but it isn't the full text of the questionnai

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/13/us...onnaire&st=cse

--
Ed Huntress

Larry Jaques wrote:

On Fri, 14 Nov 2008 21:38:57 -0500, the infamous "Ed Huntress"
scrawled the following:


"Wes" wrote in message

I hope not. I do wonder why seriously liberal commentary on other than
NPR doesn't seem
to exist though.

There is some entertaining stuff on TV now, on MSNBC. Keith Olbermann
("Countdown") can be pretty brutal, and Rachel Maddow is very good with a
sharp scalpal. g


I heard one Olberman rant on the Shrub which had me rolling.


--snip--

We could get into a discussion about it, based on audience-study data, but
you wouldn't like it. d8-) You may be surprised to know that Limbaugh's
approval rating is very low according to nationwide surveys -- just slightly
higher than that of George Bush (based on a Rasmussen study conducted last
year, and I think there was at least one other recent study that had similar
results). He has a large enough audience to pull something like 13.5 million
listeners/week (that's what they call the "cume" in radio advertising speak:
the number of people who tuned into radio at least once and at least for
five minutes in an average week) , but that's actually a smallish percentage
of voting-age Americans. They're hard core but, by themselves, they can't
win an election.


I know a lot of them. Or did in CA.



As Sam Clemmens said, "Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics"


But it proved to be an interesting article in the Science column of ABC
News today. Check the "Bottom Line"...



How McCain Won (or Could Have)

November 14, 2008 2:40 PM


According to the totals so far, Barack Obama won the election by
something more than 8.4 million votes. But Mike Sheppard says the
margin that really matters was only 445,912.

Sheppard, you may recall from a previous post, is a grad student in
statistics at Michigan State who became interested in the interplay
between the popular and electoral vote in history, and calculated how
many votes it would have taken in each race to change the outcome.

Sheppard has refrained from telling me what his own political leanings
are; his interest is in how well (or not) the electoral process works.

He showed that more than half our presidential elections since 1824
could have come out differently if fewer than two percent of voters --
the right two percent -- had voted differently and swung the electoral
college totals to the losers. In 1976, for instance, Gerald Ford could
have beaten Jimmy Carter if Ohio and Hawaii had gone his way -- and it
would only have taken 9,246 voters to make the difference.

David Chalian, our political director, has supplied the total popular
votes for 2008 as of today:

* Obama: 66,624,447
* McCain: 58,182,368

Take a look at Sheppard's analysis HERE.

https://www.msu.edu/~sheppa28/elections.html#2008

It was not a close election by his standards; John McCain needed at
least seven more states to win the electoral vote. But the most
efficient way, mathematically, for that to have happened would only have
taken 444,121 popular votes (out of 126 million cast), since North
Carolina, Indiana, New Hampshire, etc., were so close.

In other words, Mr. McCain could have become president by winning in the
electoral college, 270-268 -- though still losing by 7.6 million votes.


http://blogs.abcnews.com/scienceands...ccain-won.html

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"RogerN" wrote in message
m...

snip

"A President Obama would further spread the wealth by reviving prior
efforts to increase funding to Planned Parenthood and similar clinics..."

Another blank assertion. Sheer speculation. No evidence. No statements by
him, nor any indication that he intends to. Are all of these sources
making it up as they go along, or what?


Obama won the election, wait and see what he does, I hope you are right but
I doubt it. I've read some of the left wing stuff where Planned Parenthood
tells how wonderful they are but over the years I've heard different stories
told but former Planned Parenthood employees and those who have had abortion
services from Planned Parenthood. Most recently a woman told of her past
experiences getting 2 abortions. She said that Obama made the statement
that no one takes the decision to have an abortion casually. She said her
abortion experience was treated very casually.

In the past I've heard from a former Planned Parenthood employee that was in
the position to know how much money they were raking in from abortions and
they pushed for abortion because it was so highly profitable.

I notice you and your kind always try to discredit any source of information
that isn't liberal. Over the years I've found my sources to be accurate
time and time again. Why isn't it the information that is disagreed with
instead of the source? If something is the truth it doesn't mater who's
telling it, it's still true, same goes for something false. Some of my
sources are ahead of the mainstream media but we need to know about the crap
our elected officials are trying to slip in hoping they won't be noticed.

I'm not 100% against abortion because there are some instances where it is
needed. I think Obama and all who voted for him should have been aborted,
the world would be a better place. Just kidding, I think. The person
getting the abortion need to be informed about the risks and during and
after the procedure. I don't remember all the details but there is and
increased risk of cancer and suicidal tendencies, depression, etc. from the
procedure that Planned Parenthood treats as a casual removal of tissue. You
should hear the from some of the women that realize that they had their
child killed.

I have often found the best solution to most problems is between the two
extremes. With the majority of our government being controlled by the left
I think we are going down. To fly right you need both a left and right
wing, one keeps the other in balance.

http://www.reason.com/news/show/129228.html

"First the good news: The fairness doctrine is still dead, and it probably
will stay dead even if Barack Obama becomes president. The doctrine, a
rule that gave the government the power to punish broadcasters for being
insufficiently balanced, was killed off 21 years ago. It isn't likely to
return, despite persistent rumors that the regulation's rotting corpse
will crawl from its coffin and disembowel Rush Limbaugh."

If that's what you're presenting in evidence of your claim, you just shot
yourself in the foot.


Really? I thought I said a few posts ago that I Obama claimed to be against
the fairness doctrine but was expected to appoint a person to the FCC chair
that was all for it. You do have me wondering though, why is the guy that
Obama is expected to have in the FCC chair for the fairness doctrine? I
would think it could also be used against left wingers, it's probably
specifically written to support only liberals attacking conservatives.

snip

Do you see why I call this tedious and frustrating? You make empty
assertions with no evidence, accept guesswork as fact, and, in one case,
you even did a Gunner by presenting "evidence" that flatly contradicts
your assertion.

With Obama's expected FCC Chairman ACLJ is expecting to likely have to fight
the fairness doctrine again. It is unlikely to pass being a violation of
free speach and all but with Obamanator appointing lefties and so many
lefties in the government, we are likely not to have any freedoms left at
all in the forseeable future.

That's it. You're on your own. If you care to respond, go for it. I won't
reply.

--
Ed Huntress

You should have seen the one that got away, I couldn't tell how big it was,
I couldn't see its scales.
RogerN

Ed Huntress wrote:
I sure hope so. The recent thing I heard is that the questionaire for
prospective members
of his administration wants to know about firearms ownership. Why?


I don't know. I didn't hear it. Where did you hear it?

--
Ed Huntress

Ed, The NRA just sent out a copy of the that question. I just
read it and deleted it so I'm not excatly sure of the number
but I think it was 59. Very, if not scary at least, food for
thought.
...lew...

"Lew Hartswick" wrote in message
m...
Ed Huntress wrote:
I sure hope so. The recent thing I heard is that the questionaire for
prospective members
of his administration wants to know about firearms ownership. Why?


I don't know. I didn't hear it. Where did you hear it?

--
Ed Huntress

Ed, The NRA just sent out a copy of the that question. I just
read it and deleted it so I'm not excatly sure of the number
but I think it was 59. Very, if not scary at least, food for
thought.
...lew...

Yeah, I got the e-mail from NRA since I posted. Thanks, Lew.

--
Ed Huntress

Ed Huntress wrote:
"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 14 Nov 2008 21:38:57 -0500, the infamous "Ed Huntress"
scrawled the following:


"Wes" wrote in message
I hope not. I do wonder why seriously liberal commentary on other
than NPR doesn't seem
to exist though.

There is some entertaining stuff on TV now, on MSNBC. Keith
Olbermann ("Countdown") can be pretty brutal, and Rachel Maddow is
very good with a sharp scalpal. g

I heard one Olberman rant on the Shrub which had me rolling.


--snip--
We could get into a discussion about it, based on audience-study
data, but you wouldn't like it. d8-) You may be surprised to know
that Limbaugh's approval rating is very low according to nationwide
surveys -- just slightly
higher than that of George Bush (based on a Rasmussen study
conducted last year, and I think there was at least one other
recent study that had similar
results). He has a large enough audience to pull something like 13.5
million
listeners/week (that's what they call the "cume" in radio
advertising speak:
the number of people who tuned into radio at least once and at
least for five minutes in an average week) , but that's actually a
smallish percentage
of voting-age Americans. They're hard core but, by themselves, they
can't win an election.

I know a lot of them. Or did in CA.



Congress may not provide oversight during his term but a lot of
the citizens will paying
attention.

Of course. And they should. He's not likely to jump on the old
liberal chestnuts but he'll need popular support to keep the libs
under control.

I sure hope so. The recent thing I heard is that the questionaire
for prospective members
of his administration wants to know about firearms ownership. Why?

I don't know. I didn't hear it. Where did you hear it?

My neighbor (who watches the Washington Report or somesuch every
morning and Lou Dobbs every evening) mentioned that Obama had
something like a SEVENTY FIVE PAGE employment questionnaire for
everyone to sign. I can't _wait_ to see a copy of it online
somewhere. There are sure to be some yummy questions asked, wot?

It's 7 pages. g I just got a missive from the NRA that analyzes the
gun question like a literary exegesis, but which comes to no
conclusion except they don't like Obama asking questions about guns.

All of the questions are fairly intrusive and have raised some
eyebrows. In the case of the gun question, it looks like they're
trying to ferret out people who have committed a crime with a gun or
who are living in a state of gun crime, which is something like a
state of sin.

It's something to keep an eye on but the gun ain't smoking yet.

This article explains it but it isn't the full text of the
questionnai


http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/13/us...onnaire&st=cse

This is a question added at the specific request of the Secret Service Ed.
They are looking for unregistered guns that might be used to - well, what do
you think.......

You hit it right on the head he

"looks like they're trying to ferret out people who have committed a crime
with a gun or who are living in a state of gun crime"

--

Dick

Lew Hartswick wrote:
Ed Huntress wrote:
I sure hope so. The recent thing I heard is that the questionaire
for prospective members
of his administration wants to know about firearms ownership. Why?


I don't know. I didn't hear it. Where did you hear it?

--
Ed Huntress

Ed, The NRA just sent out a copy of the that question. I just
read it and deleted it so I'm not excatly sure of the number
but I think it was 59. Very, if not scary at least, food for
thought.
...lew...



Let's see, in recent memory: Smith and Wesson hires a president of the
company who is later found out to have committed Armed Robbery in his
past. A prominent Chicago alderman (or whatever it is there) let the
registration on his pistol/gun permits expire and was engaging in legal
gymnastics to get special laws to allow him (and others) to re-register
if they forgot.

Outside of guns, Clinton had to pull at least one nominee because of
nanny issues, and then look at the crappy vetting of Palin. Do you
really think that they knew that she had a pregnant teen daughter, a
husband who was a secessionist, had asked about how to ban books, had
anyone looked at her previous speeches and writings?

The goal is not necessarily to disqualify but rather to allow the
INFORMED choice of people so they know what will be thrown against them...

Question 37 would catch "Joe the Plumber"'s tax liens...

Curiously, unless you count question 45, they don't seem nearly as
concerned about how you have misused your automobile...

Stuart

On Sat, 15 Nov 2008 00:56:48 -0500, the infamous "Ed Huntress"
scrawled the following:


"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 14 Nov 2008 21:38:57 -0500, the infamous "Ed Huntress"
scrawled the following:


"Wes" wrote in message
I hope not. I do wonder why seriously liberal commentary on other than
NPR doesn't seem
to exist though.

There is some entertaining stuff on TV now, on MSNBC. Keith Olbermann
("Countdown") can be pretty brutal, and Rachel Maddow is very good with a
sharp scalpal. g

I heard one Olberman rant on the Shrub which had me rolling.


--snip--
We could get into a discussion about it, based on audience-study data, but
you wouldn't like it. d8-) You may be surprised to know that Limbaugh's
approval rating is very low according to nationwide surveys -- just
slightly
higher than that of George Bush (based on a Rasmussen study conducted last
year, and I think there was at least one other recent study that had
similar
results). He has a large enough audience to pull something like 13.5
million
listeners/week (that's what they call the "cume" in radio advertising
speak:
the number of people who tuned into radio at least once and at least for
five minutes in an average week) , but that's actually a smallish
percentage
of voting-age Americans. They're hard core but, by themselves, they can't
win an election.

I know a lot of them. Or did in CA.



Congress may not provide oversight during his term but a lot of the
citizens will paying
attention.

Of course. And they should. He's not likely to jump on the old liberal
chestnuts but he'll need popular support to keep the libs under control.

I sure hope so. The recent thing I heard is that the questionaire for
prospective members
of his administration wants to know about firearms ownership. Why?

I don't know. I didn't hear it. Where did you hear it?

My neighbor (who watches the Washington Report or somesuch every
morning and Lou Dobbs every evening) mentioned that Obama had
something like a SEVENTY FIVE PAGE employment questionnaire for
everyone to sign. I can't _wait_ to see a copy of it online
somewhere. There are sure to be some yummy questions asked, wot?

It's 7 pages. g

Geeze, I simply _have_ to stop listening to that old bat. Maybe it's
75 questions?


I just got a missive from the NRA that analyzes the gun
question like a literary exegesis, but which comes to no conclusion except
they don't like Obama asking questions about guns.

Oh, really? snort


All of the questions are fairly intrusive and have raised some eyebrows. In
the case of the gun question, it looks like they're trying to ferret out
people who have committed a crime with a gun or who are living in a state of
gun crime, which is something like a state of sin.

Deplorable, wot?


It's something to keep an eye on but the gun ain't smoking yet.

This article explains it but it isn't the full text of the questionnai

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/13/us...onnaire&st=cse

Ah, good. I shall deploy to the Internet immediately.

--
When we are planning for posterity,
we ought to remember that virtue is not hereditary.
-- Thomas Paine

On Sat, 15 Nov 2008 07:01:49 -0800, the infamous "Dick 'Tater"
scrawled the following:

This is a question added at the specific request of the Secret Service Ed.
They are looking for unregistered guns that might be used to - well, what do
you think.......

You hit it right on the head he

"looks like they're trying to ferret out people who have committed a crime
with a gun or who are living in a state of gun crime"

If they have to _ask_ people if they're criminals (and then rely on
their answers), what does that say about the investigative processes
going on in D.C.? Oy vay!

--
When we are planning for posterity,
we ought to remember that virtue is not hereditary.
-- Thomas Paine

"Dick 'Tater" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:
"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 14 Nov 2008 21:38:57 -0500, the infamous "Ed Huntress"
scrawled the following:


"Wes" wrote in message
I hope not. I do wonder why seriously liberal commentary on other
than NPR doesn't seem
to exist though.

There is some entertaining stuff on TV now, on MSNBC. Keith
Olbermann ("Countdown") can be pretty brutal, and Rachel Maddow is
very good with a sharp scalpal. g

I heard one Olberman rant on the Shrub which had me rolling.


--snip--
We could get into a discussion about it, based on audience-study
data, but you wouldn't like it. d8-) You may be surprised to know
that Limbaugh's approval rating is very low according to nationwide
surveys -- just slightly
higher than that of George Bush (based on a Rasmussen study
conducted last year, and I think there was at least one other
recent study that had similar
results). He has a large enough audience to pull something like 13.5
million
listeners/week (that's what they call the "cume" in radio
advertising speak:
the number of people who tuned into radio at least once and at
least for five minutes in an average week) , but that's actually a
smallish percentage
of voting-age Americans. They're hard core but, by themselves, they
can't win an election.

I know a lot of them. Or did in CA.



Congress may not provide oversight during his term but a lot of
the citizens will paying
attention.

Of course. And they should. He's not likely to jump on the old
liberal chestnuts but he'll need popular support to keep the libs
under control.

I sure hope so. The recent thing I heard is that the questionaire
for prospective members
of his administration wants to know about firearms ownership. Why?

I don't know. I didn't hear it. Where did you hear it?

My neighbor (who watches the Washington Report or somesuch every
morning and Lou Dobbs every evening) mentioned that Obama had
something like a SEVENTY FIVE PAGE employment questionnaire for
everyone to sign. I can't _wait_ to see a copy of it online
somewhere. There are sure to be some yummy questions asked, wot?

It's 7 pages. g I just got a missive from the NRA that analyzes the
gun question like a literary exegesis, but which comes to no
conclusion except they don't like Obama asking questions about guns.

All of the questions are fairly intrusive and have raised some
eyebrows. In the case of the gun question, it looks like they're
trying to ferret out people who have committed a crime with a gun or
who are living in a state of gun crime, which is something like a
state of sin.

It's something to keep an eye on but the gun ain't smoking yet.

This article explains it but it isn't the full text of the
questionnai


http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/13/us...onnaire&st=cse

This is a question added at the specific request of the Secret Service Ed.
They are looking for unregistered guns that might be used to - well, what
do
you think.......

Aha. Yes, it had the look of something bureaucratic. It's a little odd but
the questions do seem to point in that direction.



You hit it right on the head he

"looks like they're trying to ferret out people who have committed a crime
with a gun or who are living in a state of gun crime"

--

Dick

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 15 Nov 2008 00:56:48 -0500, the infamous "Ed Huntress"
scrawled the following:


"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
. ..
On Fri, 14 Nov 2008 21:38:57 -0500, the infamous "Ed Huntress"
scrawled the following:


"Wes" wrote in message
I hope not. I do wonder why seriously liberal commentary on other
than
NPR doesn't seem
to exist though.

There is some entertaining stuff on TV now, on MSNBC. Keith Olbermann
("Countdown") can be pretty brutal, and Rachel Maddow is very good with
a
sharp scalpal. g

I heard one Olberman rant on the Shrub which had me rolling.


--snip--
We could get into a discussion about it, based on audience-study data,
but
you wouldn't like it. d8-) You may be surprised to know that Limbaugh's
approval rating is very low according to nationwide surveys -- just
slightly
higher than that of George Bush (based on a Rasmussen study conducted
last
year, and I think there was at least one other recent study that had
similar
results). He has a large enough audience to pull something like 13.5
million
listeners/week (that's what they call the "cume" in radio advertising
speak:
the number of people who tuned into radio at least once and at least for
five minutes in an average week) , but that's actually a smallish
percentage
of voting-age Americans. They're hard core but, by themselves, they
can't
win an election.

I know a lot of them. Or did in CA.



Congress may not provide oversight during his term but a lot of the
citizens will paying
attention.

Of course. And they should. He's not likely to jump on the old liberal
chestnuts but he'll need popular support to keep the libs under
control.

I sure hope so. The recent thing I heard is that the questionaire for
prospective members
of his administration wants to know about firearms ownership. Why?

I don't know. I didn't hear it. Where did you hear it?

My neighbor (who watches the Washington Report or somesuch every
morning and Lou Dobbs every evening) mentioned that Obama had
something like a SEVENTY FIVE PAGE employment questionnaire for
everyone to sign. I can't _wait_ to see a copy of it online
somewhere. There are sure to be some yummy questions asked, wot?

It's 7 pages. g

Geeze, I simply _have_ to stop listening to that old bat. Maybe it's
75 questions?

Close. It's 63.




I just got a missive from the NRA that analyzes the gun
question like a literary exegesis, but which comes to no conclusion except
they don't like Obama asking questions about guns.

Oh, really? snort


All of the questions are fairly intrusive and have raised some eyebrows.
In
the case of the gun question, it looks like they're trying to ferret out
people who have committed a crime with a gun or who are living in a state
of
gun crime, which is something like a state of sin.

Deplorable, wot?

It's either because it would be potentially embarrassing, as Stuart
suggested, or, as "Dick" says, it's the Secret Service looking for a kook.
Maybe some of both.


It's something to keep an eye on but the gun ain't smoking yet.

This article explains it but it isn't the full text of the questionnai

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/13/us...onnaire&st=cse

Ah, good. I shall deploy to the Internet immediately.

--
When we are planning for posterity,
we ought to remember that virtue is not hereditary.
-- Thomas Paine

Religious people have superior visual perception than atheists
http://in.news.yahoo.com/139/2008111...ior-visua.html


"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"RogerN" wrote in message
m...

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"RogerN" wrote in message
...


Obama has plans to give Planned Parenthood a huge raise.

Tell us about those plans, Roger. What's your basis for this claim?


This isn't the original I heard on ACLJ but I did some searches on the
net to verify the information.

http://www.plannedparenthoodaction.o...e-side-157.htm

Sen. Obama has sponsored or co-sponsored numerous bills to increase
funding for family planning that will prevent unintended and teen
pregnancies. (Prevention First Act, Communities of Color Teen Pregnancy
Act)

Oh, the horror, the horror...imagine preventing teen pregnancies! Does the
man have no morals at all?


Who do you think is going to get this funding for "family planning"?

I don't know. Do you? Or are you letting your imagination take over? It
certainly can't be Planned Parenthood. All they do is abortions. Right?


more-

http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/nov/08110606.html

Another horror. More contraception. This time, without even the states'
right to discriminate base on race! What does he expect, that the states
will comply with decisions by the Supreme Court? What is he, a socialist
or something?

And if you try to tell us that you think use of the morning-after pill is
murder, then you're going on the scrap heap of delusional loony-tunes,
Roger.

Where is the evidence that he's going to increase funding for Planned
Parenthood? Still nothing, still waiting...


http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/o...for_obama.html

"A President Obama would further spread the wealth by reviving prior
efforts to increase funding to Planned Parenthood and similar clinics..."

Another blank assertion. Sheer speculation. No evidence. No statements by
him, nor any indication that he intends to. Are all of these sources
making it up as they go along, or what?



Fairness Doctrine
http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/tim...os-executioner

Roger, your claim was that Obama's "FCC chief" appointment was in favor of
reinstituting the Fairness Doctrine. This is about a guy on his transition
team. As I said, the FCC Commissioner hasn't been appointed yet.


http://www.reason.com/news/show/129228.html

"First the good news: The fairness doctrine is still dead, and it probably
will stay dead even if Barack Obama becomes president. The doctrine, a
rule that gave the government the power to punish broadcasters for being
insufficiently balanced, was killed off 21 years ago. It isn't likely to
return, despite persistent rumors that the regulation's rotting corpse
will crawl from its coffin and disembowel Rush Limbaugh."

If that's what you're presenting in evidence of your claim, you just shot
yourself in the foot.


http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.p...w&pageId=80424

Another discussion about a transition team member, not about the
not-yet-existent FCC Commissioner.


http://www.multichannel.com/CA6612005.html

...And still another one of the same.

Roger, I asked where you came up with the assertion that Obama "has plans
to give Planned Parenthood a huge raise," and what you supplied is
guesswork and empty speculation by some very biased and jaundiced
sources -- none of whom presented a shred of evidence to that effect.

I asked you about the new "FCC chief," and you came up with some articles
about a former Commissioner who is on the transition team.

Do you see why I call this tedious and frustrating? You make empty
assertions with no evidence, accept guesswork as fact, and, in one case,
you even did a Gunner by presenting "evidence" that flatly contradicts
your assertion.

That's it. You're on your own. If you care to respond, go for it. I won't
reply.

--
Ed Huntress

Obama has plans to give Planned Parenthood a huge raise.

Tell us about those plans, Roger. What's your basis for this claim?


This isn't the original I heard on ACLJ but I did some searches on the
net
to verify the information.


http://www.plannedparenthoodaction.o...e-side-157.htm

Sen. Obama has sponsored or co-sponsored numerous bills to increase
funding for family planning that will prevent unintended and teen
pregnancies. (Prevention First Act, Communities of Color Teen Pregnancy
Act)

Oh, the horror, the horror...imagine preventing teen pregnancies! Does the
man have no morals at all?


Who do you think is going to get this funding for "family planning"?

I don't know. Do you? Or are you letting your imagination take over? It
certainly can't be Planned Parenthood. All they do is abortions. Right?


more-

http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/nov/08110606.html

Another horror. More contraception. This time, without even the states'
right to discriminate base on race! What does he expect, that the states
will comply with decisions by the Supreme Court? What is he, a socialist
or
something?

And if you try to tell us that you think use of the morning-after pill is
murder, then you're going on the scrap heap of delusional loony-tunes,
Roger.

Where is the evidence that he's going to increase funding for Planned
Parenthood? Still nothing, still waiting...



http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/o...for_obama.html

"A President Obama would further spread the wealth by reviving prior
efforts
to increase funding to Planned Parenthood and similar clinics..."

Another blank assertion. Sheer speculation. No evidence. No statements by
him, nor any indication that he intends to. Are all of these sources
making
it up as they go along, or what?



Fairness Doctrine

http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/tim...os-executioner

Roger, your claim was that Obama's "FCC chief" appointment was in favor of
reinstituting the Fairness Doctrine. This is about a guy on his transition
team. As I said, the FCC Commissioner hasn't been appointed yet.


http://www.reason.com/news/show/129228.html

"First the good news: The fairness doctrine is still dead, and it probably
will stay dead even if Barack Obama becomes president. The doctrine, a
rule
that gave the government the power to punish broadcasters for being
insufficiently balanced, was killed off 21 years ago. It isn't likely to
return, despite persistent rumors that the regulation's rotting corpse
will
crawl from its coffin and disembowel Rush Limbaugh."

If that's what you're presenting in evidence of your claim, you just shot
yourself in the foot.


http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.p...w&pageId=80424

Another discussion about a transition team member, not about the
not-yet-existent FCC Commissioner.


http://www.multichannel.com/CA6612005.html

...And still another one of the same.

Roger, I asked where you came up with the assertion that Obama "has plans
to
give Planned Parenthood a huge raise," and what you supplied is guesswork
and empty speculation by some very biased and jaundiced sources -- none of
whom presented a shred of evidence to that effect.

I asked you about the new "FCC chief," and you came up with some articles
about a former Commissioner who is on the transition team.

Do you see why I call this tedious and frustrating? You make empty
assertions with no evidence, accept guesswork as fact, and, in one case,
you
even did a Gunner by presenting "evidence" that flatly contradicts your
assertion.

That's it. You're on your own. If you care to respond, go for it. I won't
reply.

--
Ed Huntress


Man oh man, what ever prompted you to give the booger so much time in the
first place? Have you gone back to hitting the bottle again?

Hawke

"RogerN" wrote in message
m...
Religious people have superior visual perception than atheists

http://in.news.yahoo.com/139/2008111...ior-visua.html


"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"RogerN" wrote in message
m...

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"RogerN" wrote in message
...


Obama has plans to give Planned Parenthood a huge raise.

Tell us about those plans, Roger. What's your basis for this claim?


This isn't the original I heard on ACLJ but I did some searches on the
net to verify the information.


http://www.plannedparenthoodaction.o...e-side-157.htm

Sen. Obama has sponsored or co-sponsored numerous bills to increase
funding for family planning that will prevent unintended and teen
pregnancies. (Prevention First Act, Communities of Color Teen Pregnancy
Act)

Oh, the horror, the horror...imagine preventing teen pregnancies! Does
the
man have no morals at all?


Who do you think is going to get this funding for "family planning"?

I don't know. Do you? Or are you letting your imagination take over? It
certainly can't be Planned Parenthood. All they do is abortions. Right?


more-

http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/nov/08110606.html

Another horror. More contraception. This time, without even the states'
right to discriminate base on race! What does he expect, that the states
will comply with decisions by the Supreme Court? What is he, a socialist
or something?

And if you try to tell us that you think use of the morning-after pill
is
murder, then you're going on the scrap heap of delusional loony-tunes,
Roger.

Where is the evidence that he's going to increase funding for Planned
Parenthood? Still nothing, still waiting...



http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/o...for_obama.html

"A President Obama would further spread the wealth by reviving prior
efforts to increase funding to Planned Parenthood and similar
clinics..."

Another blank assertion. Sheer speculation. No evidence. No statements
by
him, nor any indication that he intends to. Are all of these sources
making it up as they go along, or what?



Fairness Doctrine

http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/tim...os-executioner

Roger, your claim was that Obama's "FCC chief" appointment was in favor
of
reinstituting the Fairness Doctrine. This is about a guy on his
transition
team. As I said, the FCC Commissioner hasn't been appointed yet.


http://www.reason.com/news/show/129228.html

"First the good news: The fairness doctrine is still dead, and it
probably
will stay dead even if Barack Obama becomes president. The doctrine, a
rule that gave the government the power to punish broadcasters for being
insufficiently balanced, was killed off 21 years ago. It isn't likely to
return, despite persistent rumors that the regulation's rotting corpse
will crawl from its coffin and disembowel Rush Limbaugh."

If that's what you're presenting in evidence of your claim, you just
shot
yourself in the foot.


http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.p...w&pageId=80424

Another discussion about a transition team member, not about the
not-yet-existent FCC Commissioner.


http://www.multichannel.com/CA6612005.html

...And still another one of the same.

Roger, I asked where you came up with the assertion that Obama "has
plans
to give Planned Parenthood a huge raise," and what you supplied is
guesswork and empty speculation by some very biased and jaundiced
sources -- none of whom presented a shred of evidence to that effect.

I asked you about the new "FCC chief," and you came up with some
articles
about a former Commissioner who is on the transition team.

Do you see why I call this tedious and frustrating? You make empty
assertions with no evidence, accept guesswork as fact, and, in one case,
you even did a Gunner by presenting "evidence" that flatly contradicts
your assertion.

That's it. You're on your own. If you care to respond, go for it. I
won't
reply.


As usual, guys like you are listening to AM talk radio way too much and the
hosts have gotten you all riled up over the "fairness doctrine". The truth
is without them making a big deal out of it you wouldn't even know what it
is. If you want to understand the doctrine all you need to know is what it
was originally meant for. The radio waves are owned by the public just like
the national parks or any other nationally owned asset. As such it was not
supposed to be taken over by any political group and used exclusively to
promote it's agenda. If you can't see that AM radio has been taken over by
the right wing then you are blind as a bat. Believe me, if AM radio was
nothing but left wing propaganda you would be up in arms against the "theft"
of a national resource. Reinstitution the fairness doctrine would only make
it where radio couldn't be controlled by any single political party like AM
radio is now. But then you probably think there is nothing wrong with radio
being controlled by one party as long as it is the one you belong to.

Hawke

"Hawke" wrote in message
...


That's it. You're on your own. If you care to respond, go for it. I won't
reply.

--
Ed Huntress


Man oh man, what ever prompted you to give the booger so much time in the
first place?

I have a hard time letting that much misinformation pass by.

Have you gone back to hitting the bottle again?

You're thinking of someone else. Type I diabetics who "hit the bottle" are
dead diabetics.

--
Ed Huntress

On Sun, 16 Nov 2008 21:21:34 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


"Hawke" wrote in message
...


Have you gone back to hitting the bottle again?

You're thinking of someone else. Type I diabetics who "hit the bottle" are
dead diabetics.


Aww schit. Now he tells me. Anyone want to come to my wake?

G


Mark Rand
RTFM