Just wondering, with future elections what issues do you think are really important?

[jimmiej]

-My last one (for now) seems a bit obtuse at first, but think it through for a second. I think we need to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine via the FCC.
It was passed by a bi-partisan congress in 1987, and then vetoed by President Reagan. Consider this, courtesy of the museum of public broadcasting (full link at http://www.museum.tv/archives/etv/F...airnessdoct.htm)

The fairness doctrine remains just beneath the surface of concerns over broadcasting and cablecasting, and some members of congress continue to threaten to pass it into legislation. Currently, however, there is no required balance of controversial issues as mandated by the fairness doctrine. The public relies instead on the judgment of broadcast journalists and its own reasoning ability to sort out one-sided or distorted coverage of an issue. Indeed, experience over the past several years since the demise of the doctrine shows that broadcasters can and do provide substantial coverage of controversial issues of public importance in their communities, including contrasting viewpoints, through news, public affairs, public service, interactive and special programming.

I think that current poisoning of public discourse started when the fairness doctrine went away. Since then, broadcasters on both sides of the political spectrum have been allowed to spew away and make any claim they want without any real fear of reprisal. I think the issues facing us are far too important to let public opinion be swayed by a shouting match over the public airwaves with no referees. We've tried it without the referees for almost 20 years, and let's face it folks, it clearly ain't working!

Otherwise known as the "Shut Rush Limbaugh Up" Doctrine!

Thank goodness Predident Reagan understood free speech!

 

[cardaway]

-My last one (for now) seems a bit obtuse at first, but think it through for a second. I think we need to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine via the FCC.

The last thing I would want is the FCC in charge of anything else. They are actually more motivated by the party in charge than than the individual media pieces.

 

[scubamouse]

i'd like to see:

election reform - include paper ballot reciepts for electronic voting (i just don't trust diebold )

deficit reduction/fiscal responsibility.

trade with China and a discussion of the pros and cons of foreign ownership of US Gov't debt



i'd also like to see a major shift in 2 'debates'

abortion - let's move away from legal vs. illegal and have a real discussion about how to reduce the number of abortions. i'd like abortion to be legal and never necessary. making abortion illegal won't stop abortions. let's talk about what will - education, more access to BC, adoption reform, and yes more social accountability and anything else people can think of.

gay marriage - i'd like to see the gov't get out of the business of issuing marriage licenses period.

let the states issue civil union licenses and have churches issue marriage certificates. if a church allows gays to get married great, if not fine. it would also mean that people like Kenny Chesney and Brittany et al wouldn't be married either and therefore their marriages wouldn't impact 'the sanctity of marriage' either. i'd like the discussion to focus on the adverse impact of short lived marriages which i think are far more problematic than whether adam and steve can be 'married' for 20 years or not.

 

[cardaway]

i'd like the discussion to focus on the adverse impact of short lived marriages which i think are far more problematic than whether adam and steve can be 'married' for 20 years or not.

I'll second that.

My personal choice would be to make somebody accountable for finding an alternative fuel source. With China quickly catching up to the US in demand, it's not going to be long before we are in condflict with them for the small amount left in the world.

 

[Crankyshank]

1) Reform of Social Programs
2) Education reform
3) Health care reform
4) illegal immigration
5) job growth. Including better re-training programs and assistance for those whose jobs are being outsourced overseas.
6) environmental protection
7) alternative energy sources
8) keeping abortion legal and also implementing better education to reduce the number of abortions. I think that would fall under #1 though

 

[Mugg Mann]

Doctrine? Not in the first amendment. Your interpretation. hokiefan33's views (which I share for the most part) seem to be protected quite nicely by the second phrase in that amendment.

Except when a person is denied the right to marry strictly because of someone else's religious beliefs...I would like to hear an objection to gay marriage that does not have an origin in religious doctrine.

 

[Mugg Mann]

Otherwise known as the "Shut Rush Limbaugh Up" Doctrine!

Thank goodness Predident Reagan understood free speech!

I have no problems with Rush pontificating, and I have no problems with the free market deciding popularity as it pertains to ratings and the economic forces that are derived from it. On the other hand, I do have a huge problem with any broadcaster on either side of the political spectrum being allowed to use public airwaves to spew out one factually incorrect statement after another that is allowed to go unchecked. I fail to understand why you have a problem with the fairness doctrine if Rush's broadcast (to use him as an example) does in fact contain no deliberate falsehoods or distortions.

 

[WIcruizer]

1. National Security
2. Lower Taxes

That's ALL I ever want from the federal goverment.

 

[scubamouse]

Except when a person is denied the right to marry strictly because of someone else's religious beliefs...I would like to hear an objection to gay marriage that does not have an origin in religious doctrine.

well the one that no one ever talks about is how much it would cost companies (coughcoughwalmartcoughcough) to provide benefits to partners. yes a lot of companies do provide partner benefits but nearly as many as provide spousal benefits. oh and same thing for social security benefits.

 

[sodaseller]

Doctrine? Not in the first amendment. Your interpretation. hokiefan33's views (which I share for the most part) seem to be protected quite nicely by the second phrase in that amendment.

Not sure I follow the argument. The Free Exercise Clause certainly grants you the individual right to, among other things, marry according to your religious dictates. Applied to the issue of gay marriage, those of us of faith really have "parallel" marriages - one before the state, one before the Church. For the former, you need only pay the license fee and not be related with the degree defined by your individual state. No more is required. In return, you are granted certain legal rights, principally property rights that are unique to marriage. Each faith can then impose whatever restrictions it alone deems necessary. In my case, the Catholic Church required extensive counseling and pledges to raise children in the Church, etc. The Free Exercise Clause would absolutely protect the Catholic Church from any challenge as to the marriages it recognizes - any form of discrimination is permissible - the state cannot interfere. Even outside that issue, my Church can deny me Communion if I divorce and remarry, even though the state would recognize my second marriage as perfectly valid. And the Church may order me as a husband to obey certain dictates in caring for my wife, it cannot compel me with the force of civil law. As I said, the two systems are totally separate.

But what you and Hokie propose is to ensure that the state does not recognize marriages that run afoul of your belief system. That cannot be reconciled with any honest reading of the Establishment Clause. Not only that, it's not right

 

[sodaseller]

I have no problems with Rush pontificating, and I have no problems with the free market deciding popularity as it pertains to ratings and the economic forces that are derived from it. On the other hand, I do have a huge problem with any broadcaster on either side of the political spectrum being allowed to use public airwaves to spew out one factually incorrect statement after another that is allowed to go unchecked. I fail to understand why you have a problem with the fairness doctrine if Rush's broadcast (to use him as an example) does in fact contain no deliberate falsehoods or distortions.

And that presumes that it is truly a "market" determination, esp. with market concentration. Good post at WM about the "liberal media" at http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2005_11/007621.php

On the substantive point about the Alito ad, it's a pretty hard-hitting spot, but it's hardly "inaccurate." There are matters of opinion and perspective, but FNC suggested the ad is patently false. It's not. Alito does have a controversial record on discrimination; his ruling on the strip search continues to be a point of contention, and on his application to become deputy assistant to Attorney General, Alito really did state his opposition to a constitutional right to an abortion.

Put it this way -- if Fox News was willing to run Bush-Cheney 2004 ads, this Alito spot should have cleared the network's fact-checking process with flying colors.

On a side note, is it me or has the last year been awful for progressive voices seeking paid air time on TV? In January, MoveOn.org raised enough money to buy an ad during the Super Bowl, but CBS rejected it, noting its "long-term policy not to air issue ads anywhere on the network." Just a few weeks prior, CBS and NBC refused advertising from the United Church of Christ because the church's open, tolerant message of inclusion was labeled "too controversial." More recently, a Utah television station (owned by Clear Channel) refused to air an anti-war ad featuring Cindy Sheehan.

I guess access to the "public's airwaves" can be a real challenge sometimes.

Not to mention the recent attack on PBS in an attempt to squelch any independent voices

 

[Mugg Mann]

well the one that no one ever talks about is how much it would cost companies (coughcoughwalmartcoughcough) to provide benefits to partners. yes a lot of companies do provide partner benefits but nearly as many as provide spousal benefits. oh and same thing for social security benefits.

That's a good point. By the way, can I get you a cough drop?!?

 

[jimmiej]

Except when a person is denied the right to marry strictly because of someone else's religious beliefs...I would like to hear an objection to gay marriage that does not have an origin in religious doctrine.

I'm sure there are some non-religious people who do not endorse gay marriage.

On the other hand, I do have a huge problem with any broadcaster on either side of the political spectrum being allowed to use public airwaves to spew out one factually incorrect statement after another that is allowed to go unchecked.

Who's going to check for accuracy? The government. God help us... I say let the American people decide.

 

[WDWMom]

Energy
Education
Health care
Government Reform
Illegal Immigration


What I don't care about (politically)..

abortion
gay marriage
separation of church and state

 

[WIcruizer]

Except when a person is denied the right to marry strictly because of someone else's religious beliefs...I would like to hear an objection to gay marriage that does not have an origin in religious doctrine.

First, most laws do originate from religious doctrine. Murder, assault, theft, etc. So just because an objection to gay marriage is based on religious doctrine doesn't make it any less valid.

But here's a non-religious objection. Gay marriage doesn't make sense. I don't care if two gay people consider themselves "married." I just don't believe the state should acknowedge it. I say that with no knowledge of the legality of gay marriage, because whther it is "legal" or not is not my point. Marriage has always been acknowledged as being between a man and woman. It is tradition. What's next, can two giraffes get married? A man and 4 women? A man and his Porsche? Before you say that's ridiculous, 20 years ago anyone would have said two men getting officially married was ridiculous also. And it is.

 

[scubamouse]

But here's a non-religious objection. Gay marriage doesn't make sense. I don't care if two gay people consider themselves "married." I just don't believe the state should acknowedge it. I say that with no knowledge of the legality of gay marriage, because whther it is "legal" or not is not my point. Marriage has always been acknowledged as being between a man and woman. It is tradition. What's next, can two giraffes get married? A man and 4 women? A man and his Porsche? Before you say that's ridiculous, 20 years ago anyone would have said two men getting officially married was ridiculous also. And it is.

inter-racial marriage was against the law in some states up until the past 40-50 years. that wasn't traditional marriage at the time. marriage has evolved for that and for widespread divorce. do you see divorce or gay marriage as the bigger threat to marriage?

how do you feel about civil unions - legal rights for gay couples? and about calling civil services for hetero couples, civil unions not marriage?

 

[Planogirl]

But here's a non-religious objection. Gay marriage doesn't make sense. I don't care if two gay people consider themselves "married." I just don't believe the state should acknowedge it. I say that with no knowledge of the legality of gay marriage, because whther it is "legal" or not is not my point. Marriage has always been acknowledged as being between a man and woman. It is tradition. What's next, can two giraffes get married? A man and 4 women? A man and his Porsche? Before you say that's ridiculous, 20 years ago anyone would have said two men getting officially married was ridiculous also. And it is.

The idea is that what two consenting adults do should be no one else's business. I believe that only applies to humans.

I don't think that basing laws on what is traditional makes much sense either. Laws are established for the good of the people IMO. At least in theory.

 

[WIcruizer]

how do you feel about civil unions - legal rights for gay couples? and about calling civil services for hetero couples, civil unions not marriage?

I don't agree with renaming marriage "civil unions." Civil unions for gay couples....maybe. If there is a way to call it something other than marriage so you can get family health insurance, etc., that's fine with me.

 

[scubamouse]

I don't agree with renaming marriage "civil unions." Civil unions for gay couples....maybe. If there is a way to call it something other than marriage so you can get family health insurance, etc., that's fine with me.

my point was outside of a Church. Get the Churches back in the business of issuing marriage certificate like they do baptismal certificate. In Church - married, out of Church, civil union.

my issue w/this is that as along as the discussion is about gay marriage it'll never get to the issue of civil rights for gay e.g. insurance and other benefits.

 

[jimmiej]

The idea is that what two consenting adults do should be no one else's business.

IA. Just don't ask me to endorse it.