See what others have said

Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.

Comments

1. #101
   On February 26th, 2009 at 6:29 pm, Dexter Alarius said:

   They’re about to bring back the “Guns that look mean” ban, too. Dagnabit! I don’t have the spare change right now to buy one before they pass it!

2. #102
   On February 26th, 2009 at 7:09 pm, graysonret said:

   Mchristian, the new “rule” governing the Constitution, since the ’30s, is that if it agrees with the congress, it’s defended quite strongly. If it disagrees with the congress, it is ignored. The supreme court and the federal courts are too busy legislating to concern themselves with something that might be unconstitutional. And, a lot of Americans don’t care; they look to the entitlements.

3. #103
   On February 26th, 2009 at 7:25 pm, Jvette said:

   RogerCfromSD said:

   lgm, really, could you be a bigger jackass if you tried?

   Actually, I think lgm does try and if, as they say, practice makes perfect, he should be darn close to perfect by now.

4. #104
   On February 26th, 2009 at 8:38 pm, Joy said:

   Ed said

   He won’t be satisfied for Euro style pseudo-socialism, I’m afraid.

   That’s what bothers me when people keep talking about Socialism. Most think Euro-style and don’t think of it as evil. What hussein is shooting for is Marxism or Communism, and that’s what we should be calling it.

5. #105
   On February 26th, 2009 at 9:17 pm, TooMuchTime said:

   How the socialists feel about socialism:

   A century of failure proves nothing.

   This is proof that liberalism is a mental disorder. The definition of crazy is to continue to do the same thing over and over and expect different results.

   Liberals keep trying socialism over and over and every time, they expect good results. However, all the people get is misery, loss of rights, loss of property, and in the end, loss of life.

   There has never been a successful socialist country. Ever. If socialism is so great, then why, after nearly 50 years of suffering through it, East Germany threw off the shackles of socialism and chose freedom instead? Why didn’t free West Germany join with the “workers paradise” of socialist East Germany? Because after you suffer the misery of socialism you want to be free.

   The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of misery.

   - Winston Churchill

6. #106
   On February 26th, 2009 at 9:31 pm, Salt said:

   On February 26th, 2009 at 6:14 pm, undresiege said:

   I appreciate your response. We may differ politically, but it sounds as though we’re agreed on opposing any incarnation of the Fairness Doctrine.

7. #107
   On February 26th, 2009 at 9:34 pm, garydt said:

   LGM you are a liar and your side uses the scare tactics fully with the backing of the media which is in your court. Notice Durbin doesn’t seem to mind the tv media having the fair doctrine does he? He doesn’t mind that the paper media has the fairness doctrine either. He is only attacking the one media that he can’t control as of now. There is plenty of space on the radio for leftys to put their radio stations on now. Just go do it.

8. #108
   On February 26th, 2009 at 9:36 pm, zorro said:

   There will be a revolt if anything that looks, or smells like a “Fairness” Doctrine passes. Guaranteed. If those fools want a fight with the silent majority, pass the “Fairness Doctrine”, go ahead, make my day…

9. #109
   On February 26th, 2009 at 9:45 pm, happyscrapper said:

   On February 26th, 2009 at 9:36 pm, zorro said:
   There will be a revolt if anything that looks, or smells like a “Fairness” Doctrine passes. Guaranteed. If those fools want a fight with the silent majority, pass the “Fairness Doctrine”, go ahead, make my day…

   Somehow, “Fairness Doctrine” just doesn’t describe what this really is. We need to change it to censorship, as it actually is! The liberals named it, like they named “stimulus bill”, which is actually “reparations bill”. We need to stop falling into their trap.

10. #110
    On February 27th, 2009 at 3:52 am, wild thing2 said:

    Thank you Michelle,the dems don’t want freedom of speech unless it is theirs.

11. #111
    On February 27th, 2009 at 6:30 am, herself said:

    Well, now. If the liberals have to be given a chance to purchase media outlets in areas which lack diversity then let it happen. Sell at market rates.

    Then purchase the stations back after the lefties lose the shirts off their backs trying to promote their agenda over the radio. The price should be well under the price for which you sold the station.

    {^_-}

12. #112
    On February 27th, 2009 at 9:58 am, lgm said:

    garydt (#107)

    I think you have it backwards. The fairness doctrine (not the fair doctrine) is that media using public airwaves should not be allowed to favor one or the other political party. If they have a show bashing Democrats, they should have an equal show bashing Republicans. This applies to broadcast media only, not cable and not print or internet.

    That means TV (not cable) and radio. The radio part was dropped maybe 20 years ago. This made is possible for Republican hatemongers like Limbaugh to make a profit trashing America.

13. #113
    On February 27th, 2009 at 10:35 am, Salt said:

    On February 27th, 2009 at 9:58 am, lgm said:

    I think you have it backwards. The fairness doctrine (not the fair doctrine) is that media using public airwaves should not be allowed to favor one or the other political party.

    Do you want equal opportunity or equal outcomes, lgm? Be honest.

14. #114
    On February 27th, 2009 at 10:58 am, RTater said:

    Laree – You sure were right. The Turban Durbin amendment passed, backdoor “fairness” doctrine.

15. #115
    On February 28th, 2009 at 12:24 pm, lgm said:

    Salt said (#113):

    Do you want equal opportunity or equal outcomes? Be honest.

    In media, equal opportunity is best for liberals. Put Hannity in a fair debate with Maddow, and Hannity will be exposed for the fraud he is.

16. #116
    On February 28th, 2009 at 7:07 pm, Salt said:

    On February 28th, 2009 at 12:24 pm, lgm said:

    Salt said (#113):

    Do you want equal opportunity or equal outcomes? Be honest.

    In media, equal opportunity is best for liberals. Put Hannity in a fair debate with Maddow, and Hannity will be exposed for the fraud he is.

    That’s your opinion and it skirts the question. By contrast, Air America did poorly, even in a liberal market.

    So, I ask again: Do you want equal opportunity or equal outcome?

17. #117
    On March 1st, 2009 at 6:38 pm, Straight_Talk_Luigi said:

    In media, equal opportunity is best for liberals. Put Hannity in a fair debate with Maddow, and Hannity will be exposed for the fraud he is.

    If liberals knew how to manage a budget and would not put their dopey ideology of “progress” above that of journalistic integrity, they would not be in the mess they are in.