Thursday, July 03, 2008

Keeping The Airwaves Fair

"Before God we are all equally wise - and equally foolish." ~ Albert Einstein

Every now and then some Democrat starts pushing the dreaded "Fairness Doctrine" again. Recently it was San Fran Nancy "Stretch" (Bela)Pelosi.

For the uninitiated (is there really anybody more uninitiated than me?), the Fairness Doctrine presumably would force radio and television outlets to present equal time to all sides of every issue. Political, social, religious, and any other category.

Democrats insist we must level the playing field, but why must we level it by lowering the more productive to the level of the less productive? Why can't we try to level it by elevating the less fortunate?

To take the idea to extremes, the Fairness Doctrine would, presumably, insure that Saturday morning gardening radio shows offer equal time opinions on why planting vegetables is more important than planting flowers, and vice versa.

But that isn't really what Democrats have in mind. They want to silence free speech. Not all free speech, of course. Only the free speech with which they disagree.

No, wait.

That isn't completely true. I find it highly unlikely that they really disagree with many Conservative ideologies.

It's probably more accurate to say they only want to silence free speech that might cause their Liberal constituencies to think.

After all, it is to the Liberal Democrat politicians advantage to make sure their constituency doesn't think. Thinking is a political liability to Democrats.

Within minutes after a Liberal Democrat begins logically thinking on his own, he becomes a Conservative.

I would say he becomes a Republican, but John McCain disproves that theory.

The point isn't whether Democrats personally disagree with things like the myth of man-made Global Warming, or that Homosexual marriage is in direct juxtaposition with the original concept of a one man, one woman marriage, etc.

It's about political expediency. And about money. If a Democrat can see a monetary or political advantage in an ideology, it doesn't matter whether they personally agree with the concept.

So, the idea is to prevent people from thinking logically. Hence, the "Fairness Doctrine".

The "fair" part of the "Fairness Doctrine" means, according to the Democrats, that all opinions on any given political subject should be presented within an equal amount of time with every other opinion. Thus, a Liberal viewpoint would get equal time with a Libertarian viewpoint, and a Conservative viewpoint, and a Green viewpoint, and a Judeo/Christian viewpoint, and a Satanic Viewpoint, and a Nazi viewpoint, and a Communist viewpoint, etc, etc, etc.

Which, admittedly, seems to be -- uh ---fair.

But what of the radio and television executives? How fair is that to them? They are in the business of making money. Everyone works to make money. Even Liberals, in spite of their insistence that they only do what they do to make the world better. They wouldn't be community activists or politicians if it didn't make them money.

Some of us work to get rich. Some of us work simply to make a living. But both wealth and merely getting by requires money.

My point is this:

If the fairness doctrine is implemented in the way Democrats say they want it to be implemented, it would severely decrease the numbers of listeners/viewers, and without listeners, their advertisers stop buying airtime to promote their products, and the radio/TV networks would lose so much money they would be forced to shut down.

So, I suppose the Democrats would eventually get what they really want. The end of Conservative talk radio and TV. But many Radio and Television personnel would be out of work.

Now, wait a minute, Liberals. Try to think logically about this assertion. For once.

Lets say, for example, Rush Limbaugh wants to present his opinion on Gas Prices. He has a certain amount of time to present his opinion, and then he must move over to let a Liberal (Al Franken perhaps?)talk show host present his side. The Liberal has the equal amount of time to present his side, but then, he also has to move over so the Conspiracy theorist can present his side, and so on.

Now. Rush Limbaugh has high ratings for his rant. Then, the ratings drop precipitously. Liberals don't get the ratings to sustain an entire network of Liberal talk shows, let alone short segments when any liberals in the audience have to sit through an hour of common sense talk by Rush Limbaugh first. The ratings for the Liberal host are dismal at best, and ratings for other crackpot rantings even worse.

Aside: I would tend to listen to a conspiracy theorist before I'd listen to a Liberal, and I suspect, so would just about everyone else. I suspect the conspiracy theorist would garner even better ratings than the Liberal.

Many Democrats have questioned why Conservatives have better ratings then their Liberal counterparts.

Their reasoning is that Conservatives have monopolized the market, hence, the proposed "Fairness Doctrine" legislation.

This theory defies logic, which should be pointed out, is why it is such a popular theory among lemming mentality bleeding heart Liberal sob sisters.

Here is the real reason Liberals don't listen to Liberal talk radio:

They don't listen because they prefer to listen to music and/or comedy programs. Particularly music and comedy that bashes Conservatives. They do not want to listen to talk radio. Talk radio of any kind prompts the listener to think.

Liberals don't like to think. Logic interferes with their need to feel.

While feelings and logic are not necessarily mutually exclusive to each other, the Liberals need to base their political ideology on emotion usually cancels out logic.

Conservative talk radio invites the listener to think logically and even disagree with the hosts conclusions on occasion. Liberal talk radio invites the listener to agree with everything the hosts say, whether it is logical or not.

But, either way, if a listener listens long enough to either, whether said listener is a Conservative or Liberal, the listener begins to think for himself.

Then, the Liberal begins to see and understand the fallacy of the typical Liberal ideology.

And when that happens, Liberal talk radio becomes irrelevant to the thinking listener. Hence, Liberal talk radio loses listeners to Conservative talk radio.

Conservative talk radio is already fair.

It gives the listeners what they want. It enables the listeners to stay Conservative and the Liberals to continue listening to George Carlin and Marilyn Manson.

What is more fair than allowing the listener to make their own choice?

37 comments:

Gayle said...

Makes a lot of sense to me, Mark. Besides that, their so-called "fairness doctrine" isn't fair at all. They already have more television stations and newspapers than we do. Calling it a "Fairness Doctrine" is a joke!

Welcome back! :)

The Liberal Lie The Conservative Truth said...

Welcome back Mark. Great post and well thought out.

Like you wrote liberal talk radio fails because it is designed to make the listener think.

Liberals are like mind numb robots who only follow what they hear and see. They use the same talking points on all subjects and never use their own mind to put together a cohesive thought much less a political idea.

Happy Fourth of July Mark.

Timothy said...

I think it's odd that what they call the listeners of Rush's show is mind-numbed robots, when in reality, they are the ones the refuse to engage the mind. It's always emotions, usually extreme hate for conservatives, and unrealistic love for the likes of Obama.

Marshall Art said...

TLLCTC,

I don't think lib radio is designe do make people think, unless by that you mean it is designed to make people think like a liberal. Lib radio, what little of it I've heard, seems designed to parrot what they believe it is that makes conservative radio successful. Therein lies the reason they fail. They're not trying to really be anything other than a lib version of Rush Limbaugh, with the exception that they think they're more hip, evidenced by the lower standards of humor.

And then from the listener side, I agree with Mark that libs don't much care about real political debate. Being self-centered, generally speaking, they are more concerned with self-gratification. Serious talk radio is akin to work. They want to play.

One point I never really considered, that Mark brought out in this post, is the reality that to be fair, every hair-brained alternative would, if not should, be deserving of equal time. What a train wreck that would be.

The only true reason for the success of conservative talk radio is that amongst those people who enjoy political talk on the radio, most of them like what they hear on conservative shows. In other words (as if I really need to type them for y'all), the market for talk radio is listeners who like political talk, and of that market, most listeners are conservative or like the conservative shows.

Bottom line, the Fairness Doctrine is for wussies.

Mark said...

Art, re: "I don't think lib radio is designed do make people think, unless by that you mean it is designed to make people think like a liberal."

I meant what I said. Think about it for a minute. If anyone, even a raving Liberal, listens to a typical raving Liberal talk show host long enough, he will eventually begin to understand that the words the host speaks are nonsense. Hence, the Liberal listener will begin to think for himself, and after a time, will become a Conservative.

No one could listen to Al Frankens drivel very long without turning Conservative.

Al-Ozarka said...

"I would say he becomes a Republican, but John McCain disproves that theory."

Good line!

Democracy Lover said...

At the risk of casting pearls before swine, I have to inform you that thinking is almost exclusively a liberal trait. Conservatives, particularly the type of love talk radio, only read other conservatives, only watch Fox News, only listen to right-wing talk shows. They do not analyze anything, they begin with their own pre-conceptions and insist that these are true regardless of the evidence presented.

It wouldn't hurt any conservative to take a good long listen to a smart progressive (say Thom Hartman or Rachel Maddow) and contrast that with the ranting of the typical right-wing host who only invites liberals (one in a blue moon) so he can yell at them and prevent them from making a point.

Over and over again we see data that demonstrates that Americans who get their news only to conservative outlets are grossly misinformed on virtually every subject - foreign policy, economics, energy, climate - you name it. Bringing back the fairness doctrine is dangerous. Conservatives might find out how little they know.

Mary said...

Great post, Mark!

As Gayle points out, the Left has a virtual monopoly on network TV and they control far more newspapers than conservatives.

If they want to pursue the Fairness Doctrine, that's fine with me.

Every time someone on NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, or MSNBC opens their mouth, we will demand equal time.

All talk radio can't compare with the air time they chalk up everyday.

And every time a Lefty celebrity starts spouting off on a talk show, we'll demand equal time.

Let's monitor Oprah's show and demand equal time.

There aren't enough hours in the day to level the playing field.

I think it's very telling that they are so threatened by conservative talk radio that they want to silence it, even though so many media outlets are Leftist propaganda operations.

Anonymous said...

Somehow I doubt that Rush Limbaugh would get a $400 million deal if there was any chance in Hades that the Fairness Doctrine could come back from the dead.

Mark said...

Dear Democracy Hater:

A very well stated position, however, it is pure unadulterated BS. Especially that part about "smart progressives".

Heh, heh, Smart Progressives" HA!

Add that phrase to our ever growing list of oxymorons.

Mark said...

Daddio, out of everything I wrote, you can only single out one good line? What are you? A Perfectionist?

Mark said...

Art. TLLCTC?

Andrew Clarke said...

I agree with your views here. So much political correctness depends on self-serving double think, and airing a view makes it harder to keep that up. Thanks for your comment on my blog. You're right on! The victim mentality is one reason why litigation has become such a huge industry. Blame someone else for all your own mistakes and sue them. It avoids taking responsibility.

blamin said...

”Logic interferes with their need to feel.” Great line Mark – kind of sums it all up!

Dem Lover,

Surely you’re just yanking our chain for giggles and kicks. You can’t possibly be serious. I’d be interested in seeing the “data” you refer to. Or is simply just another line from one of Al Frankin’s fantasy novels?

Marshall Art said...

Mark,

First of all, the abbreviation was to The Liberal Lie The Conservative Truth, whose real name I know not. Secondly, it was from his comment that I got the "... designed to make the listener think." stuff. To that, I maintain that it is NOT designed to make libs think like conservatives even if that is the likely result of those who burden themselves with listening. To that, you are assuming that a liberal would listen like an individual without preconceived notions that are echoed by the host. Should they do so, then I agree they are likely to feel the fool for believing what they did.

Marshall Art said...

DL,

"I have to inform you that thinking is almost exclusively a liberal trait."

It's what they think that is so troubling. That is, if we are to use the word "thinking" to describe what goes on in their twisted minds. For example, liberals "think" they have evidence for their positions. Well, they may, but it doesn't prove their case.

Another example is that they "think" conservatives don't analyze things. But that is how we come to be conservative. It is because we've analyzed liberal positions and policies and found them wanting that we then decide that conservatism is the only practical, pragmatic and reasonable way in which to view life. Our society is awash in manifestations of liberal failure. The problem is that liberals are incapable of "thinking" rationally, and thus they continue supporting the same stupid ideas and policies.

Now as far as what goes on on conservative talk shows, you'd do well to actually listen to a few. Then you'd find that Rush gives more airtime to liberal callers than he does to "Ditto-heads". And he doesn't rag on them to get them off the air. He attempts to actually teach them what his position is.

Michael Medved almost exclusively takes liberal callers for the same reason as Rush and you'll generally only hear "Med-heads" when Medved has a liberal guest, like an author.

Hugh Hewitt has a regular feature on his show he calls, I believe,
"the Smart Guys", or words to that effect. During this period he will ask questions to be answered by a conservative and a liberal, both of whom are indeed, smart guys. He also regularly has liberal guests, that is, the same guys with whom he debates issues.

Dennis Prager also invites those with differing opinions and strives to elicit clarity.

I could go on. Sure, there are those whose patience with the lunacy that flows so freely from liberal mouths has limits. Michael Savage, for instance, though I don't much care for him and rarely listen in. But such is hardly common. If you actually listened to conservative talk radio, you'd not have made such a stupid accusation.

And your last paragraph is sheer crapola. "Over and over again" my eye. You wish.

Democracy Lover said...

Thanks for making my point, Marshall. You have long ago made up your mind on all the issues and no matter what facts a "liberal" might cite, you consider them irrelevant because they don't fit what you "learned" long ago.

Jim said...

I'm constantly amazed (yet I don't know why) at the proclivity for you people to "believe" that somehow there is a difference in the motives and morals of the left and the right beyond a point of view, that the left is evil and stupid and the right are saintly geniuses.

The main difference I see is that the right inhabits the realm of ad hominem and fear whereas the left cites policies and the Constitution.

I don't think the Fairness Doctrine is needed as long as no point of view is prevented from being available to those who espouse it or wish to consume it. No group, corporation, or consortium should have complete control of any media such that any point of view is unable to be aired.

Marshall Art said...

DL,

Sorry if I crapped on your suggestion that cons who only get their info from con outlets are badly misinformed. Where'd you get that stuff, lefty outlets? You present no facts to support this fallacy, so what response would you expect, automatic acceptance? Hardly. The fact is we indeed DO look at facts, we indeed DO consider the other side, and again, we find it wanting.

Jim,

It isn't easy to believe the the lefty policy decisions are based on anything altruistic seeing as how the are generally abject failures. To continually suggest more of the same can only mean one of two things: stupidity or conspiracy. Let me be clear. I don't believe all libs to be evil, but they are often instruments of evil when one considers the results of lib policies.

You think we are perveyors of ad hominem. Hmmm. Read any lefty sites lately? Sure we mock the left. Hard not to as they provide so much material for mockery. But the left citing policy and the Constitution? Don't make me laugh. The left distorts the Constitution and injects into it that which was never there. Indeed a major difference is the the right reads the Constitution as it was written, using the writers' own words written elsewhere for clarification, and the left pretends we can't know original intent and that the Constitution is some kind of living and changing document which means whatever one wants it to mean at any given moment.

I do, however, agree with your last paragraph and it represents a rare moment of real thoughtfulness. Congrats. There's hope for you.

Marshall Art said...

One caveat: A radio station owner, for example, has the right to air whatever content and opinion he so chooses as long as it doesn't break existing laws. The airwaves, however, must not be so controlled so as to deny anyone from airing their opinions. Important distinction.

Jim said...

Agreed on Fairness Doctrine, Marshall.

However, if you are so knowledgeable and reverent of the Constitution, why do you ignore the part about habeas corpus? And why is it when 5 justices uphold the Constitution regarding habeas corpus and the fourth amendment, they are unelected activist judges, but when they strike down a law created and passed by the duly elected representatives of the people of Washington, DC, they are heroes?

Marie's Two Cents said...

Off Topic:

I'll have to come back and read this when I have a little more time.

Happy belated 4th of July Mark :-)

Al-Ozarka said...

"Daddio, out of everything I wrote, you can only single out one good line? What are you? A Perfectionist?"

Okay...EXTRAORDINARILY good line, Mark!

Cameron said...

"I don't think the Fairness Doctrine is needed as long as no point of view is prevented from being available to those who espouse it or wish to consume it."

This seems like a pretty good point.

I confess some ignorance when it comes to radio. Are there laws preventing someone from broadcasting? How is the whole thing regulated?

Cameron said...

It's interesting that commenters here from both ends of the political spectrum are using the same argument against each other.

"Conservatives/Liberals are robots."

This is not a new argument by any means, and I've often wondered why it's so prevalent.

I think there are actually conservatives and liberals that don't put a lot of thought into their positions. But I have had interactions with people from both sides that do make good, thoughtful arguments for their beliefs. I often disagree, but it doesn't make their thoughtfulness any less important or sincere. The problem comes when we label a group and forget that it's actual people that make up that group. When we get to know the people we often find our stances softening a bit.

As for sources of information, I think it is important to be aware of who is giving us our info. I don't watch a lot of cable news, but what I have seen doesn't really qualify as "news". Most of it is opinion shows dressed up as reporting, or worse, argument shows dressed up as reporting. The best they can do is cause one to do some homework on their own to dig deeper into the topic. They can cause one to think. But really, they don't seem to be all that different from the blogosphere, as far as facts vs. opinion is concerned. It's up to each individual to form an opinion and make sure it's an informed opinion.

danny wright said...

A true fairness doctrine would be devastating to Liberals. That would mean that half of CNN, ABC, CBS,NBC, would actually have to tell the WHOLE truth. But I'm sure that's not what they have in mind when they use the word fair.

Jim O'Sullivan said...

Well said! As we say in the blogosphere: you nailed it.

Marshall Art said...

Jim,

My position on habeus is that I don't believe it is necessarily granted to prisoners taken off battelfields. I don't believe that any concern over such has ever been wasted on Nazi or Japanese POWs during WWII. They basically cooled their heels for the duration. That is what I believe is appropriate here. The problem comes along due to the fact that they are not being labeled as POWs per Geneva, for which they don't really qualify given their methods. It puts Bush in a tough spot because of the new category these bastards have created for themselves by those methods. Yet, at the same time, consideration for the very thing habeus grants was already being put forth. Only the details remained to be worked out for every single one of those that had yet to be released. As you know, there are less than half of those originally taken that are still in Gitmo. So that which was wronglfully whined over had been taking place, albeit not at the pace and in the manner lefty whiners were trying to insist upon in their continuing quest to undermine the Bush Admin. Overall, I simply don't believe that they are in anyway entitled to habeus because they already know damned well why they were imprisoned. There's no freakin' mystery. They were shooting at the good guys.

Regarding the gun ban, the law enacted deprived law abiding people of their right to bear arms. It's just that simple. Unconstitutional law.

Jim said...

Marshall,

Seems to me that the Nazi and Japanese POWs were captured in uniform by combat troops. Many Gitmo prisoners were turned in by Pakistanis and Afghan warlords for bounty and where no identifiable uniform. I see a distinct difference, and it seems to me that little is lost and much more is gained by adhering to traditional American values and Constitutional language and precedent by granting prisoners who have never worn a uniform and were "captured" under vague circumstances a chance to make a defense.

Regarding guns, the meaning of the 2nd amendment has been debated for years. If it had been non-debatable, it wouldn't have been debated, would it?

Now the debate has ended because the body responsible for deciding the meaning of the Constitution has decided. As an anti-assault weapon liberal, I tend to agree with the ruling.

What I find hypocritical is that when the court overturns a law based on your amendment, the law was unconstitutional but when the same court overturns a law based on my amendment (1st or 4th for example) then they are unelected activist judges.

Comment?

Marshall Art said...

Jim,

I would say that is quite likely the cases you present constitute the bulk of those detainees already released. Those would be the most problematic, naturally, so I would have no doubt that what remains belong there, if not at the end of a rope. I find it appalling how easy some find it to consider the statements of the detainees more likely to be the truth than the testimony of our own people. I would hate to think that you are among those liberals who, by such reasoning, paint every single person involved with the detention of the Gitmo guests as evil and malicious sadists. I give our people the benefit of the doubt by assuming they are mostly decent people doing a tough job and feel good knowing that should any truly innocent people still be there, they are at least living well compared to the average American penitentiary inhabitant.

Regarding the 2nd Amendment, the meaning has been debated mostly by jerkwads who hope no one ever reads the words of the founders who crafted it. To be fair, there are those who feel gun bans are beneficial to society. Unfortunately, these people believe a really stupid premise and forget the nature of the criminal element.

But this is really the point regarding interpretations. We are fortunate to have archived for us a vast pool from which to study the thoughts and intentions of those who formed this nation. People like Scalia rely on them. People like Souter don't. There is very little mystery as to what was intended, and the idea of law-abiding citizens having the right to arm themselves is very clear. So my response is that there should never have been this debate over the meaning of the 2nd if not for the wacky and not altogether honest motivations of gun-banners.

As for your last paragraph, I consider them ALL my amendments in that I don't see that it is all that difficult in most cases to see when the court rules the wrong way, or makes stuff up (Roe v Wade) in order to legislate from the bench. The question is always whether the ruling accurately interprets the Constitution as regards the case brought before it.

Jim said...

"liberals who . . . paint every single person involved with the detention of the Gitmo guests as evil and malicious sadists."

This is a false premise. I don't know of any person who does this. However, there is incontrovertible evidence that members of the administration have hampered the fair administration of justice at Gitmo according to American values.

Regarding the 2nd amendment, I say again, if there was no debate needed, why has it been debated and why did the Court find it necessary to rule on it? Why are my jerkwads worse than your jerkwads? I think mine are better.

What did the founding fathers write about the internet, about automobiles, the telephone, electricity, flying machines, a global economy, women voting, negroes voting, birth control, and pollution? Surely your vast pool of writings will account for everything that has occurred and arisen over the past 200 years, right?

Since you have cornered the market on interpreting the Constitution and the laws, why don't we just scrap the court and let you decide.

Anonymous said...

This is a false premise. I don't know of any person who does this. However, there is incontrovertible evidence that members of the administration have hampered the fair administration of justice at Gitmo according to American values.>>

A friend of Dan's? He has this picture perfect people that he knows and they are never guilty of wrong attitudes or views, it's just us awful conservatives. :-( Mom2

Jim said...

Dear Mom,

I read newspapers, many blogs, listen to talk radio, and watch several cable and network news programs. I don't know anybody who's perfect, but I also don't know anyone, have never read anyone who wrote, or seen or heard anyone EVER say that anyone involved in the detention of prisoners at Gitmo evil and malicious sadists.

Bet you haven't either.

tugboatcapn said...

I'd be okay with scrapping the Courts and just letting Marshall decide...

Marshall Art said...

It's not a false premise, Jim, its an underlying attitude by liberals toward the military and the Bush admin. And I've never heard anything that resembles incontrovertable evidence of the charges you present, but would be happy to review any links.

Regarding the 2nd, I never said there was no debate needed, but since you did, there's a point with which I can agree. A better question would be, why have there been so many who seek to impose a meaning upon the 2nd that doesn't exist? I say again, there is so much preserved from that time that the intent of that amendment cannot be honestly, and I use that word intentionally, interpreted against the personal possession and even carrying of weapons. Who stands to gain by such a restriction but people in power? Those people can be the government or the criminal element because neither will lay down THEIR arms. My jerkwads understand the plain meaning of the 2nd and know of the many sources that support it. Yours pretend we can't know what was intended, which is why they are truly jerkwads.

"What did the founding fathers write..."

You'll have to explain the relevance of this paragraph. I'd like to be sure I know where you're going before I respond.

Your last paragraph is just snarkiness. As I suggested in my previous comment, most SCOTUS decisions aren't all that tough to determine whether they are truly in line with the Constitution. The point is how well the justices see things. And all one need do is read the decisions and dissents to understand who's doing the interpreting and who's doing the Amazing Karnac impression.

Jim said...

Marshall said,

"It's not a false premise, Jim, its an underlying attitude by liberals toward the military and the Bush admin."

This is utter baloney, to be polite. First, don't conflate "the military" and "the Bush" administration". They are not the same.

Of course it is true that any liberal, most moderates, and a hell of a lot of conservatives have a very low opinion of the Bush administration, and with good reason. (see 29% favorable rating and 82% wrong track).

This is in no way connected to "the military". Every liberal I know has a profound respect for the military as a whole and as individuals. Most don't like what the Bush administration has done with and to the military. This does not reflect a dislike or disrespect of the military, as a whole or as individuals.

While you might find a few examples of people who may dislike or disrespect the military, you won't find them as national figures, prominent politicians, and they would in no way represent the liberal movement or liberals in general.

It IS a false premise. Period.

"I never said there was no debate needed,"

Perhaps not in so many words but you say it in effect when you say those who debate from a different viewpoint than yours are jerkwads as if there could be no valid viewpoint besides yours.

Interesting that so many opinions are 5-4 and yet apparently the decisions should be simple because "most SCOTUS decisions aren't all that tough to determine whether they are truly in line with the Constitution."

So when it's 5-4 for your viewpoint it's simple interpretation of the Constitution and 5-4 in my favor, the majority is just flat out wrong.

I think you are living in the wrong country based on your understanding of how the Constitution and the Court works.

Which leads me to ask: what was the original intent of the framers of the Constitution regarding signing statements?

Marshall Art said...

Jim,

Beginning with your last question: I dunno. Question never came up. Did they have signing statements back then? If not, and you know they didn't, what's your point in bringing it up? In fact, what's your point no matter whether they did or didn't have them back then?

I really don't know which SCOTUS decisions worked out to your satisfaction, so I can't really respond to questions regarding that. As far as how often the Court decides with a 5-4 vote, we can see that almost every time, the split is the four coservatives, like Scalia, Thomas, Roberts and Alito leaning one way, with the other four losers going the other way, and a swing voter, usually Kennedy being the final vote.

Now, I said losers because I think that a very good case can be made that those four, usually Kennedy as well, do not work within the parameters of their job description, which is to look at the case before them and decide one way or the other according to the dicatates of the Constitution. Too often, these losers will look beyond the Constitution, like considering the decisions of courts in other countries, and reading what isn't actually in the Constitution (a conservative judge would never render a Roe v Wade decision).

This is why this election is so very important. An Obamanable win would certainly result in vacancies filled with more Ginsburgs and Souters, rather than with another Roberts or Alito. This is very bad for the nation and the reason why disgruntled voters need to suck it up and vote for McCain, as painful as that will be.

Regarding the military, Clinton stated that he "loathed" the military. Berkely, California's city officials are trying to kick out the Marine recruiters in their town. Libs constantly whine about miltary spending and miltary actions. Who the hell are you trying to kid? The "Every liberal I know..." gambit is tiresome. And the fact that Bush is Commander in Chief means that libs decry the policies carried out by the military, but try to save face by saying they support the troops. Doesn't wash. In fact, if it could be shown that most of the active military personnel rate Bush poorly, I'd wager they prefer him by wide margins over the liberal media and politicians any day of the week (my opinion, but I stand by it).

"I never said there was no debate needed,"

I said the above in regards to the 2nd Amendment only. Sorry if I wasn't clear. On that issue, no debate IS needed because of all the supporting evidence regarding original intent. When you bring up all the other stuff, particularly clearly modern developments, of course the founders didn't write about stuff that didn't exist. But weaponry and the need and right to defend one's self, loved ones and property clearly existed and was a definite sign of whether one was truly free of government oppression.

As to modern developments, principles of truth, fairness, liberty, etc are not distorted by modern developments, thus, the Constitutionality of an action or policy or desire can still be easily determined in most cases. (I think just deciding if the case is a job for the SCOTUS is just as difficult or easy as deciding the cases at which they choose to look.)

I think you're too stuck on my use of the term "jerkwad" or any other ad hominem in relation to the left side of the Court. I don't think that judging their performance is an indication of my understanding of how the Constitution or Court works. It IS, however, a critique of how THEY work. And as a tax-paying citizen, I have the right to decide such things as I do the right to judge the performance of anyone within my government.