Conservatives have pushed this idea that the fairness doctrine will mark the end of their radio dominance. It is foreign to me why a person would want to listen to something that is completely one sided. I have no issue with their views. I do take issue when they push misinformation and inaccuracies. Case in point, 70% of Fox News viewers believe that there were WMDs in Iraq. They can say what they want. But my issue is more about changing the facts themselves, not their opinion.

In regards to this you said, “I have not seen any evidence of this. I challenge anyone to produce a pamphlet, petition, letter, court filing, plea, or any other evidence of this. They never will. Because it is pure fabrication.”

Take some time to look into the Fairness Doctrine. It would eviscerate conservative talk radio.

Uh, NO, not quite. If a conservative is homosexual, he won’t necessarily IDENTIFY as such, he may get married and father children to help advance his own political career, and he’ll spout hypocritical anti-Gay positions … but still enjoy engaging in furtive, anonymous sexual encounters with other men, usually at motels, roadside rest areas, and airport bathrooms.

Whereas if a liberal is homosexual, he will more like live his life openly, honestly, and with political integrity, and advocate equal treatment for all law-abiding, taxpaying citizens regardless of sexual orientation.

As for what you call “legislated respect,” you and I both know there really is no such thing. No amount of legislation could coerce you into respecting anyone. Do you know anyone who is Gay? Do you know any longterm Gay couples? And if so, is it possible for you to respect the commitment they have made to each other?

Perhaps not. Perhaps no Gay person would get your respect. But the fact remains that there is simply no Constitutional justification for denying law-abiding Gay individuals and couples the very same legal benefits and responsibilities that Straight individuals and couples have always taken for granted.

Let’s go back to your original statement, and simply change “homosexual” to “black.” Perhaps you would say, “If a liberal is black, he will loudly demand his civil rights. If a conservative is black, he will be content to sit in the back of the bus.”

To say that Mr. Obama may not have enough experience to be the President of the United State is a valid comment. Even to say that some of his expressed ideas are quite liberal even left wing, but say that he is sympathetic to Soviet style communism is a distraction.
Mr. Obama claims to be a Christian not a follower of Islam that should be the end of the discussion. Both candidates would do well to leave this topic alone.

Similarly, to say that Mr. McCain is not particularly motivated by the economy is quite valid but to say that he does not care is a stretch. One can believe that the economy is not in recession and can in fact move forward without complicating the system with rash regulation without being blind that many people are financially stressed and concerned. It is a distraction to say that Mr. McCain would like to be in Iraq for 100 years is that exact same kind of politics that said Mr. McCain had a black love child. The facts were well known in both cases.

I wish this blog great success, I believe reasoned discussion will temper the scorched Earth politics that we have seen these past 25 years.