question for bush supporters

[mattttt25]

not a troll, really looking for some insight. i'm very uncertain on the right candidate for me, and your comments on this topic may help.<br /><br />i hate stereotypes, generalities, labels, and party lines, but i'll use some to ask my question and to attempt to be clear.<br /><br />from what i can tell, bush supporters are mostly conservative republicans. you support our constitution and all it stands for. you dislike big govt. you want your guns and your rights. you don't think the govt has a right to tell you how to raise your children. based on the threads seen around here, i think i'm correct thus far in what i've said.<br /><br />now let's talk about free speech. it seems clear to me that bush is very much against this. he fully supports michael powell and his dictatorship of the fcc. he has or is ready to sign into law a bill that will levy huge fines against media markets that air "offensive" content, as defined by the fcc.<br /><br />doesn't this stance contradict what most republicans stand for?<br /><br />thanks in advance for your opinions and ask everyone to play fair.

 

[NYMINUTE]

Re: question for bush supporters

We know the devil we have the devil in waiting is unknown. Frankly I have become indifferent to all the crap. We ship our jobs to foreign countries, and bring their people here to work and live. Meanwhile those of us who have built this nation are unemployed, or under employed and scrapping to get by to retirement which may also be in limbo. Seniors on a fixed budget are unable to pay for medication, yet we export billions of dollars worth of the same medicine to other countries for pennies on the dollar or free. It goes on, and we all see it yet we are powerless. Sure we can vote, and what we have now is a result of those years of our vote. Support Bush? Why not. I know this devil. Sorry I get carried away, I have lost 2 positions to Mexican operations in 8 years.

 

[mattttt25]

Re: question for bush supporters

thanks for the opinions nyminute, but i don't want this to turn into a kerry vs bush. just looking for insight on the topic as described.

 

[LadyFish]

Re: question for bush supporters

Originally posted by mattttt25:<br /> he has or is ready to sign into law a bill that will levy huge fines against media markets that air "offensive" content, as defined by the fcc.<br /><br />doesn't this stance contradict what most republicans stand for?

That IMO would depend on what context of the word "offensive". <br /><br />All I can say is that I am really sick and tired of the media not being held responsible for misreporting facts that steer the opinions of all of us. The half truths that are being reported now by both sides will no doubt sway this election. To me, I just want the facts, the REAL facts. I also want the media to be fined and exposed for their lies. They need to be held accountable.<br /><br />I would like to include the political ads, that have gotten so out of hand as well. Half truths. Too many Americans rely on the television and newspaper as their only sources of news and don't have the resources to check the facts. I think its ashame that we can't believe anything thats being reported without first checking 10 other resources to get to the REAL truth. And even then, I think we have to question the validity of those reports.

 

[hayhauler]

Re: question for bush supporters

The FCC controls the public airwaves, and I think they should be moderately controlled. There are many very nearly uncontrolled forms of communication, and those too should be permitted. Just like we don't permit public sex and nudity (unless it's a Democrat supporter in NY) we shouldn't permit the public airways to be used for communications which most find offensive.

 

[mattttt25]

Re: question for bush supporters

my question focuses soley on the fcc's control of public media, and bush's strong support of it.<br /><br />as you can tell, i'm concerned that with bush in office, my freedom of speech is in jepordy. media giants are being fined and influenced by the fcc and republican party for actions that have not been defined by the courts. it just appears that if gwb or michael powell find something offensive, that it is. this offensive content is now forced to move to private ventures, such as cable tv and sat radio. but now we here that the fcc and republicans are exploring whether they should regulate those medias as well.<br /><br />just afraid it won't end. it may not have substance, but i am afraid of a leader or single political party deciding for me what is offensive and limiting free speech based on their opinions.

 

[mattttt25]

Re: question for bush supporters

after reading my own post above, it sounds like so many i read here from strong supporters of bush, just on different topics. goes back to my original question... is this a republican contradiction?

 

[oddjob]

Re: question for bush supporters

No I dont think so Mattt. Saying something about someone that is untrue is subject to slander. Theres a reason for that. Its to protect a man or womens repitation. If you or do this then we can be held for our actions. If the media does this it can change the publics opinion by a barrage of untrue negative statements. Everyone on both sides here complains that they want just the facts and not the BS. Right now I think (no, I know)the public is getting alot of BS.<br /><br />Pornograpy and acts that contridict Global Social mores ...is not free speach. Is not for my children. Radio waves and frequencies do not belong to everybody. It has to regulated same as an automobile. Its a privilige not a right.<br /><br />It public, we allow free speach just not slander. Anyone, feel free to correct or help me here.<br /> <br /><br />Campaign Finance reform I believe is against free speach during elections. It hasn't hurt Bush at all but I'm stiil against it.

 

[mellowyellow]

Re: question for bush supporters

with the advent of cable and now sattelite radio,<br />this is soon to become a non-issue Matt as the<br />FCC has no control over these options, so I would<br />not worry too much about this issue.<br />being a "Libertarian" at heart, I believe in less<br />Gov't control. this is one (of many) reasons I<br />will vote for GW.

 

[JB]

Re: question for bush supporters

I don't see it as a big change, Mattttt.<br /><br />I don't like the vague description of "offensive". I think the bill is a lot more specific than that, but there will still be the "what is pornographic?" interpretation question to deal with.<br /><br />I am much more of a Libertarian than a Republican, which means I agree with the left on some social issues that restrict individual "pursuit of happiness" Freedoms.<br /><br />I don't see freedom to be gross, disgusting, shocking or dishonest in the public media a "pursuit of happiness" freedom because it infringes on the happiness of others.<br /><br />Bottom line? No, I don't think such a bill contradicts Conservative values.

 

[samagee]

Re: question for bush supporters

I think the issue with getting the FCC involved more came from the SuperBowl half time issue. There are those who are trying to get TV here like it is in Europe. They have nudity on their normal TV stations. I personally think that the U.S. has to grow up in these aspects. There is nothing wrong with nudity. However, we do not want porn on the normal TV stations. That is an adult area, and there should be guidelines to make sure these euro-wanna-bes don't get out of control.<br /><br />There are going to be issues with both candidates, and what these candidates want to do. They have plans, we the public will or will not go along with those plans in congress. Meaning that we will fight that issue in congress. You can't please all the people all the time, even if you are the "big man on campus."

 

[aspeck]

Re: question for bush supporters

Matt, the key word is "public". As I understand, this does not cover the "Cable" or "Satellite" end of the communications spectrum, so if it is viable, and what the consumer wants, it can still be had (unfortunately, it is more what the producers want to produce, than what the public wants, IMO). It is just not in the "public" arena. I don't have a problem with that at all.

 

[NYMINUTE]

Re: question for bush supporters

I agree the media needs to be accountable. So do our elected officials. Where did the $$ go? Why did you fail to make good on promises? Why did you vote against or for___________? Are they not our employees??

 

[kenimpzoom]

Re: question for bush supporters

It isn't a contradiction. We believe in having morals. We dint want to have to see that stuff on public TV. If I want to see it, I go to satellite or cable.<br /><br />Censorship means a total ban. That wont happen here. We are just talking about a ban of certain things on certain channels.<br /><br />Personally, I am not offended by anything Stern says or the Super Bowl halftime thing (My mom and I laughed at it). But I respect the morals of the majority and dont mind not having those things on broadcast TV/Radio. If I want to see/hear that, all I need to do is get satellite.<br /><br />This is a minor issue that some people blow way out of proportion.<br /><br />Ken

 

[BillP]

Re: question for bush supporters

Originally posted by SoulWinner:<br /> <br />I think that anyone who is insulted, offended or otherwise damaged by anything they hear on the radio or see on television, and is too stupid to change the channel should be publicly flogged. <br /><br />The only "common good" people see these days is the good that applies to their segment of the population, not Americans as a group. <br /><br />The roots of this compartmentalization of the population date back (at least) to the '40s when democrats were Grand Wizards of the KKK, and since then, particularly in the 90's, politicians (primarily Democratic) have exploited the differences among Americans for their own political gain, using race, income, gender and sexual orientation as flashpoints in thier shamless endeavor of appealing to certain voters.<br /><br />

SoulWinner...Amen Bro!

 

[spratt]

Re: question for bush supporters

Freedom of speech...well that comes in many flavors. Some call it "art", some call it "demonstrating", some call it political slander"...some just call it the ability to say whatever they want to say, no matter who is is offended. I think we have freedom of speech in this country, but I also think that some people take it further than they should. Some artists have been censored, and I thought it was good. Our children do not need to be seing what some "artists" call art, nor do I want to. As far as teh media, I have not owned nor had a television in my home for over 25 years. I choose what papers and magazines I want to read, so one can say I am "censoring" the media. I don't care. I have to put up with a lot of that garbage in the workforce, I DON'T have to invite it into my home.<br /><br />I can't see where Bush is taking away free speech at all. I believe that the media SHOULD censor themselves et al to be more wholesome. Why should our children have to be removed from the room because some garbage spouting free-speech activist uses any language they want to make their view known? I say that somewhere down the road, some parent didn't reign their kid in and now the problem has multiplied itself, and teh general public is expected to sit by and suffer through their ranting and foul spewings.<br /><br />Go ahead, and if you can reign in these idiots a little bit in Hollywood, Mr. President, you have my vote!

 

[Mrs Soulwinner]

Re: question for bush supporters

I'm with you spratt. Very well done and very well said!

 

[POINTER94]

Re: question for bush supporters

Matt,<br /><br />As far as the gun toting Americans who think that the second amendment means something, and the fact that it is actually written down specifically outlining a specific right the conversation answers itself. Exercising that right is not only legal, but to many, a defining difference between Americans and the rest of the world. It is the ultimate FREEDOM, to protect yourself and family from threat, be that governmental or criminal or both. If you have issue with that you have issue with the constructs of what this country is, neither candidate should receive consideration for your vote. Didn’t you see Kerry “crawling on his belly and playing the wind” with a gun.<br /><br />If you think the FCC is preventing the freedom of speech, you are misinterpreting what the first amendment means. Most any constitutional scholar will tell you that freedom of speech refers to political speech. If you think that being fined for profanity, or airing a live sex act is restricting free speech, you may want to do a little more research. What is the difference between Howard Stern or Jerry Springer teaching toddlers how to use a condom and say Wild Kingdom? Are they providing public service through use of the publicly owned airwaves? Why can’t you yell fire in a crowded theater? If freedom of speech is absolute, this would be an infringement on our rights. Is issuing a fine for each guttural four letter word or “accidental wardrobe malfunction” depriving anyone of the message? Is the message worth listening to? Is there a message at all? Would being fired for discussing religion and politics at a business lunch with the firm’s largest client be illegal? Or perhaps there is a certain amount of common sense that needs to be applied. But, common sense is in short supply today, so direction is needed. Freedom of speech has been twisted to meet whatever the lowest common denominator wants it to be to meet his/her agenda. <br /><br />Look back 25 years, or 50 or 75 years and what happened to those poor deprived citizens. Were they not called the “greatest” generation? Why couldn’t Amos and Andy pump off a couple of F-bombs. Wouldn’t it be cool if Ralph Crandon’s wife was a *****? Or the Beaver’s father was a drunken ped0phile? Just a couple of years ago Jerry Springer was considered EDUCATIONAL for adolescent children and used by stations to fulfill their public service commitment of their license. (Clinton Administration) You can’t seriously agree with that can you? At some point standards have to be enforced and they really have nothing to do with the constitution as no political speech has been curtailed -only expanded.<br /><br />Just how I look at it….

 

[spratt]

Re: question for bush supporters

Well said Pointer...but we all are painfully aware that we no longer live in the days of Leave it to Beaver, nor Ralph Cranden...and for that I am sorry. I wish we still had that easy simple lifestyle when a man could trust his next door neighbor around his wife, or his next door female neighbor around himself<br />11 (See Deputy's thread Annoyning neighbor)...<br /><br />Since we do not live in those days any longer, and we have an "enlightened" general public, and we have to teach our 2 & 3 year old children to be wure to stay close in public because someone may steal them, I believe that someone needs to assist in some kind of control. Myself, I do not have the ability to reach out and tell hollywood or any other media to behave. So, if someone in the capacity will listen to the outcry of a public concern and help keep the airwaves / news media et al, in check, I am for it. Yet, I know that even that can be abused.<br /><br />We do not have a united ideal in the general public, nor a consistent moral fiber in this country, any longer. Just as in the Old Testament times, people do whatever their conscience will allow them to do, from driving 90 in a 60 zone, right up to having sex with the neighbors 8 year old daughter. Or killing another human for their little bit of money. Whatever.<br /><br />What a sad time to have to raise children. <br /><br />And yet there is good news...I have a hope in Jesus Christ.

 

[Mrs Soulwinner]

Re: question for bush supporters

spratt wrote:

We do not have a united ideal in the general public, nor a consistent moral fiber in this country, any longer. Just as in the Old Testament times, people do whatever their conscience will allow them to do, from driving 90 in a 60 zone, right up to having sex with the neighbors 8 year old daughter. Or killing another human for their little bit of money. Whatever.<br /><br />What a sad time to have to raise children. <br /><br />And yet there is good news...I have a hope in Jesus Christ.

Amen Brother! And it is that hope and walk with Jesus Christ that allows you to do and teach your children to do the right thing. IMHO