Author: Michael A. Ventrella

by

Impeachment is a win/win for Democrats

Sure, the Republicans are going to fight against a second Impeachment, but there are two possible resolutions:

First: They agree and we get Trump removed from ever holding office again. We set the standard for the future that a President doesn’t get a break from encouraging an insurrection against his own country; that he’s not above the law. We show that the United States stands for something. And those Republicans that do the right thing and join us will get attacked by the crazies in their party, who will run Trumpies against them in the next primary, thus making them easier to beat. The infighting in the party only benefits us.

Second: They don’t do that. (This is much more likely. I mean, come on, how can you have a trial when the jury is full of co-conspirators?) Trump remains popular, might run again, might start a new party that will siphon votes away from Republicans. (Or he gets arrested and can’t lead his sheep from jail). We get to hang this unpopular ex-President around the necks of those Republicans who placed politics above the country. The longer Trump is away, the less his popularity will carry him. Moderates and independents won’t look back fondly on the Trump years, and the support Trump had does not always flow to his sycophants.

So yeah, those Democrats who are saying his impeachment is ridiculous or a waste of time aren’t looking at the big picture here. Pelosi and Schumer know exactly what they’re doing.

by

The Insurrectionists

Clay Bennett
by

My favorite Bernie photoshops

Poor Bernie at the inauguration! He’s old and cold, and looks kind of sad, so everyone tried to cheer him up with these pictures. I’m sure he’s taking them in the way they are meant — not mean-spirited at all. Here are some of my favorites. Click on them to enlarge.

by

Funny ’cause it’s true

Matt Bors
by

A sigh of relief

You know what I’m really looking forward to? Going days if not weeks without thinking about the President. Because he’ll be doing his job competently like he’s supposed to.

For instance, I have no idea what President Biden is thinking right now. Isn’t it grand?

by

Dumb man walking

Pat Bagley

by

No, we don’t need to bring the Fairness Doctrine back

Many liberals complain that we need to bring back the “Fairness Doctrine” to prevent Fox News and other right-wing outlets from spouting constant lies.

While the right-wing lie machine is indeed a problem, bringing back the Fairness Doctrine is not only a bad idea, it wouldn’t solve the problem.

The Fairness Doctrine was established in the late 40s to apply to radio and television, and it required broadcasters to provide equal time to opposing views. It was eliminated during Reagan’s attack on all government regulations.

Doesn’t the doctrine seem to violate the 1st Amendment, by regulating what you can say on your own radio or TV show? Well, yes and no. The Supreme Court held that TV and radio were different than newspapers or magazines (which never had to follow a “Fairness Doctrine”). There were limited frequencies available — only so many TV and radio stations could fit on the same dial in the same area. Therefore, the government needed to regulate those frequencies to prevent overlap and confusion. And if you wanted a license to broadcast, the government could put restrictions on your license: Only so many commercials per hour, no obscenity, public service announcements, and equal time to opposing views.

This never applied to cable, which doesn’t need “frequencies.” There is an infinite number of cable stations that could exist, so the government cannot regulate it in the same way. The Supreme Court even ruled in one case that it could not be applied to newspapers or magazines since there was not a limited number that could exist, and the same logic applies to cable.

So even if we brought back the Fairness Doctrine, it would not affect Fox News or other cable stations at all.

And why would we want it to? Seriously, do you really want that? Think about it. It would have to apply to everyone. You really want Rachel Maddow to say “And now, for an opposing view of what I just talked about, here’s ten minutes of Rush Limbaugh”? No, that’s not why I watch MSNBC.

The other thing to consider is that even when we had this, it didn’t work very well. Not all views are equal. Yet, in order to meet the requirements of the Doctrine, TV stations had to give time to the most ridiculous things. “And now, to counter our learned doctor who spoke of his wish for everyone to get a vaccination to fight the covid virus, here’s a guy who has a web page claiming this will place microchips in our skin so that Bill Gates can track our moves and better gauge where to send the chemtrails.” TV stations would cave in to ridiculous “equal time” provisions so as not to lose their licenses.

So no, we don’t need the government regulating free speech and violating the 1st Amendment. Whenever you think that way, ask yourself how that can be used against you. Imagine if Trump had been re-elected and was given the right to demand “equal time” and regulate TV stations and cable news that way. You think they’re going to go after Fox, or will they attack all the stations they consider “fake news”?

 

by

Sorry for his loss

Steve Sack
by

Dear conservatives whose free speech rights have been violated:

I know you can no longer post on Facebook or Twitter, but here’s the rub:

YOUR RIGHTS ARE NOT BEING VIOLATED.

Setting aside the issue that only the government can violate your 1st Amendment rights, let’s address the issue where instead you’re claiming that you’re being silenced by the Powers That Be for your views.

Some of you are complaining because of the difficulty of trying to set up a place where you can speak and not be “censored for your views” but it’s too difficult to get a foothold in the free market. I would suggest that we should look into breaking up monopolies so that companies can’t get so big that it is impossible to compete with them — oh, right, you’re are against that, too. Maybe the “free market” isn’t the solution to all our problems after all.

What we really need to do is look at what you’re really saying, because, let’s face it, no one is censoring conservative voices.

You want to start a new service for conservatives where you can discuss conservative issues? Lower taxes, less regulation, abolish the UN, whatever? NO ONE WILL STOP YOU.

What is being restricted are hate posts. Posts arguing for the violent overthrow of the United States Government. Posts calling for the murder of people you don’t like. If you consider those “conservative” views, then that says a lot about you, doesn’t it? If these sites were all run by Islamic extremists calling for violence and hatred, I’d bet you’d be the first to demand they be shut down.

“Dammit, they won’t let me into McDonald’s any more to scream about QAnon to the other patrons! And not only that, they have a sign outside that says ‘no shirt, no shoes, no service’! My rights are being violated!” NO THEY’RE NOT. You can scream all you want in your own home, but no one has to be forced to give you a place to scream. You have the right to say just about anything, but you don’t have the right to demand that anyone provide you with the forum for you to say it.

You want to join civilized society? Be civilized.

by

Impeachment: The Sequel

Brian Carroll