Comments on: "Nationalization", The New Fairness Doctrine

By: Da King

Da King — Mon, 02 Mar 2009 14:58:56 +0000

The Rev say no one wants to nationalize the banks at the same time he says he wants to nationalize the banks, and at the same time that some banks have already been nationalized.

I think this issue has been settled.

By: The Reverend

The Reverend — Sun, 01 Mar 2009 13:38:17 +0000

This one is pretty good. If only it were, you know, literal. Wall Street playa's rotting in the field and being eaten by vermin…..go call Steven King.

By: Halifax Express

Halifax Express — Sun, 01 Mar 2009 05:54:46 +0000

un-ruled players,
left to rot,
in the fields,
born of greed,
unsaved,
over extended.
Lending-hands,
making mistakes,
flavors of honey,
devoured by vermin,
and locust.

By: The Reverend

The Reverend — Sat, 28 Feb 2009 13:52:39 +0000

See, Obama and his corporate Treasury Dept still believe, like Greenspan once did, that the Masters of the Universe will do what's fair and just. They won't. So, in a modern age of mouse clicking, I don't want private enterprise in charge of the nation's money. No thanks.

How much money would the free market banking system have to steal from Americans before we woke up and said no more? $100 trillion? $500 trillion? How much?

By: larry d.

larry d. — Fri, 27 Feb 2009 23:59:03 +0000

So it's gone from no one wants to nationalize to, 'Well heck it's a pretty good idea!'

By: The Reverend

The Reverend — Fri, 27 Feb 2009 16:27:24 +0000

I still insist that no one wants to nationalize the banks. Clean up the sewage in them? Yes.

Now….The Reverend WOULD nationalize the banking industry….in a heartbeat. The reason?….the banking industry can't be trusted….and it sure looks to me like recent evidence proves me correct.

S&L scam, dot.com balloon scam, Enron and Enron-like scams, oil commodities scam, and now derivative and default swap scams.

They. Can't. Be. Trusted.

By: Da King

Da King — Fri, 27 Feb 2009 15:40:16 +0000

What party did the 11 who voted FOR the Fairness Doctrine belong to, the Whig party ?

Obama said he was against it (thanks again FoxNews and others), so most Dems followed the Prez. It's no secret that lots of Dems wanted the Fairness Doctrine. And the issue is not over. Dems can still accomplish the task of shutting up the righty talkers another way. Stay tuned.
—
What else did you want to talk about ? Oh yeah, bank nationalization and all the freaks who worry about it (I think I liked it better when you called them "villagers." That conjures up visions of mobs with pitchforks and torches and such. Nice imagery. "Freaks" reminds me too much of the old hippie days. That conjures up long-haired dopers in tie-dyed t-shirts. Doesn't fit the righty stereotype).

Today, it was announced that the government will buy 36% ownership of Citigroup, and demand changes there. Now, if there was a word to describe the act of government taking ownership of a private enterprise and implementing governmental policy at that enterprise, what do you suppose that word would be ???? Hmmm. Let me think……okay, I've got it. That word just might be "nationalization."

And haven't Fannie and Freddie already been nationalized ?

And didn't Obama say he was partial to the Swedish model of dealing with failing banks (quasi-nationalization) ? And haven't several left-wingers and some Democrats in Congress say they favor bank nationalization ? Didn't Alan Greenspan also say it might be necessary ? Haven't some Republicans, like Lindsay Graham, agreed ?

Yet you act like it's all some crazy talk radio conspiracy or something. Fraid not. In this case, it's much ado about something.

But I don't think Obama wants to just take them ALL completely over. Not yet, anyway.

By: The Reverend

The Reverend — Fri, 27 Feb 2009 13:01:34 +0000

"The Senate approved an amendment Thursday that would outlaw the so-called "Fairness Doctrine," an off-the-books policy that once required broadcasters to air opposing viewpoints on controversial issues.

Republican Sen. Jim DeMint's amendment passed by a wide margin of 87-to-11."

Enough proof? Or will it take a second vote for the ouchers to believe?

Anyone want to deal with the nationalization issue? Anyone…Beuller…

By: Da King

Da King — Fri, 27 Feb 2009 10:54:45 +0000

Rev,
I think you should have used the word "freak" a few more times to describe your political opponents. It so illustrates your fair-mindedness.

Mary,
The Dems had no chance of passing the Fairness Doctrine until now. That's why no action was taken previously. One month after Obama became president, it was voted on in the Senate. Ouch.

I'd like to congratulate FoxNews and the entire GOP for getting on top of this issue and letting it into the light, making the public aware of it, and exposing Democrats for the freedom crushing creeps that many of them are. THAT is why the Fairness Doctrine failed in the Senate. There is no other reason. If the Dems could have gotten away with it without looking like a bunch of commies in the public eye, they would have done it in a hearbeat.

A win for the good guys.

By: mary

mary — Fri, 27 Feb 2009 10:10:05 +0000

Mike — Fairness and Accountability in Broadcasting Act.s last action is listed as February 25, 2005. Lets see that is over 4 years ago. Do ya think there is any action going on? Ouch.