Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
Let Freedom Ring (update)
Posted by: McQ on Tuesday, November 04, 2008

Watch this ignorant and arrogant lout (Chuck Schumer D-Fascist) use classic moral relativism to argue for "consistency" as the reason to use government coercion to reimpose the "Fairness Doctrine":


They are feeling froggy in Dem land, aren't they?

UPDATE: If the Schumer example above isn't perverse enough for you, try this:
He also defended “card check” legislation, claiming there is a strong need to allow workers a private ballot to register their votes on whether to organize a union.

Schumer said “there has to be some counter” to the leverage businesses have, claiming “employers have every leg up on people who want to organize and that’s why union workers have gone down from about 25 percent to 6 percent [in the private sector].”
The "solution" to claimed "leverage" enjoyed by businesses? Remove the secret ballot from the process and allow union intimidation to enter into it.

After all, the purpose isn't to ensure freedom and liberty for workers and allow them a choice free from intimidation on either side, it is to grow the unions to a size that is once again a formidable Democratic electoral tool that also has the proven ability to destroy whole industries.
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
By Chucky’s logic the regulation of pornography warrants the regulation of speech.

Did I miss something?
 
Written By: Moby
URL: http://
So, conservative opinion is akin to porn, eh?

The only tiny bit of satisfaction I’m going to get out of watching the filthy dems (spit) bring back and expand the Fairness Doctrine (an Orwellian term if I’ve ever heard one) will be from watching libs who have yapped these past eight years about Bush’s "assault on the Constitution" twist themselves into rhetorical knots defending this outright assault on free speech. Notice how Trashcan Chuckie managed to imply that this is "consistent" with conservative values: "Well! Some people don’t want to broadcast porn! Now, I agree with that, and in the interests of consistency, we’ve got to regulate what people say on the air."

That Trashcan can’t or won’t see the difference between "Debbie Does Dallas" and The Rush Limbaugh Show speaks volumes about what a totalitarian idiot he is.

"I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it! That is, so long as you’re fair about it. And don’t offend anybody. And... well... so long as you agree with me."

Bah.
 
Written By: docjim505
URL: http://
Did I miss something?
Nope. You pretty much nailed it.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.QandO.net
Actually you did miss something....add the word "conservative" to the sentance before the word speech.

Because that’s the gameplan.

Also, notice how he mentioned about printing presses not being regulated? That’s code for "We’re leaving the WaPo and NYT alone"

 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
Neither should be regulated but you anti-porn crusaders are just receiving your karmic justice.
 
Written By: TomD
URL: http://
Neither should be regulated but you anti-porn crusaders are just receiving your karmic justice.
You know, you keep showing up here with these boilerplate lines which make it clear you obviously don’t know anything about this place.

Among those who write here, produce one example of "anti-porn" crusading.

Just one.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.QandO.net
Among those who write here, produce one example of "anti-porn" crusading.
If it wasn’t for porn, most teens would not be as computer literate as they are. :)
 
Written By: capt joe
URL: http://
Seriously, I’ve crusaded for more porn if anything ;)
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
In the interest of diversity of opinion I’ll crusade for anti-porn, but in a non-coercive sort of way only.

Porn, like drugs, is very bad for you. The objectification of women can damage the ability to have a healthy relationship. Sex-work is not liberating. Paying for sex is pathetic... paying for pictures while you do yourself is even more pathetic.

Also, modesty keeps the naughty bits naughty, and that keeps things more fun.

I think that will be the slogan for my anti-porn campaign. "Keep the naughty bits naughty."

:-)
 
Written By: Synova
URL: http://synova.blogspot.com
Revisit Dale’s post on going to war.
As much as I hate the thought, I WILL NOT allow my children/grandchildren to have their freedoms denied.
 
Written By: Greybeard
URL: http://pitchpull.blogspot.com/
paying for pictures while you do yourself is even more pathetic
no kidding, there’s plenty of free pr0n out there...
 
Written By: huh
URL: http://
I think that will be the slogan for my anti-porn campaign. "Keep the naughty bits naughty."
That’s fine Synova, you’re obviously more than welcome to your opinion - the challenge I’ve issued is to have this guy point out where any of us who write for this blog have been "anti-porn crusaders".

The archives are open to him - I wish him luck.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.QandO.net
As for FCC rules... perhaps voluntary rating is a realistic possibility, but I really don’t think it’s "okay" to fail to give people warning so that they can *choose* to view (or listen to) pornography. At some point the unexpected exposure to porn can be compared to picking up an obscene phone call or having a strange man expose himself to you. These things make a person feel violated, and for good reason. Subjecting children to these sorts of sexual assault is a crime.

Being free to chose to view pornography is one thing. But people should have the right to chose NOT to view pornography... without that choice requiring them to not watch television, listen to the radio, or leave their homes because they never know when it’s going to show up. Children (particularly pubescent ones) should not find pornography thrust at them.


 
Written By: Synova
URL: http://synova.blogspot.com
That’s fine Synova, you’re obviously more than welcome to your opinion - the challenge I’ve issued is to have this guy point out where any of us who write for this blog have been "anti-porn crusaders".
If anything, you guys are pro-porn. Hell, I’ve seen days where every link on Q and O went to a porn site.
 
Written By: Is
URL: http://
If anything, you guys are pro-porn. Hell, I’ve seen days where every link on Q and O went to a porn site.
LOL!

Thanks for ruining my monitor, Is.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.QandO.net
The decline of Unions is another of the unintended consequences of those "popular progressive programs".

Unions hurt themselves, when they moved from the bargaining process to the political process to achieve their ends. Every piece of legislation to provide retirement security, workplace safety, workplace rules, or ... has made the unions less useful to workers.

The more that the unions had to bargain for, the more powerful they were, because they were providing a service to workers.

The more that they used government to achieve ends, the less useful they were to workers, though the more important to the politicians.
 
Written By: newshutz
URL: http://
I’d be shocked if any of the people who write for this blog are anti-porn crusaders. That’s just silly. :-)
 
Written By: Synova
URL: http://synova.blogspot.com
He does this drop and post conservative bashing boilerplate because the capital D in Tom’s screen name stands for the short version of Richard.

 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
The objectification of women can damage the ability to have a healthy relationship.


Healthy relationship!? HA HA HA HA. Stop with the fiction . . .
Paying for sex is pathetic... paying for pictures while you do yourself is even more pathetic.
Men don’t pay for sex . . . they pay her to go away after sex. And masturbation is pathetic, but dang, I’m married . . .
 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
Seriously, I’ve crusaded for more porn if anything ;)
I’ve used market forces to encourage porn production . . .
 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
"Hell, I’ve seen days where every link on Q and O went to a porn site."

Uh, you checked them all?? Dude, that is pathetic.
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider