• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Fairness doctrine

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Dr. Zaus

Lifer
Oct 16, 2008
11,770
347
126
Originally posted by: Farang
Originally posted by: DixyCrat
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: Farang
I don't understand where you get the idea that Pelosi and Reid are going to usurp the power of the executive branch.
Another one who doesn't know how things work? Go figure...
what CSG is trying to say is that often times the executive branch gives things that they say they would rather not to people of their own party in order to get things of greater priority, that they do want, done.

Just ask yourself, would obama give up protecting us from the fairness doctrine in order to get some unpopular(among democrats), but necessary, things (ex: clean coal) going?
No he is saying that Obama is going to bend over and take it in the ass by Pelosi and Reid, without bothering to mention a reason why he would give up his power as the executive. I understand it is a give and take process but really Obama holds most of the cards. It has traditionally been this way when the President's party controls part or all of congress.
The question is, how much of the 'political capital' is obama willing to expend on that situation? Every little thing obama doesn't do for the democrats in congress is another little thing that won't get done that he wants.

this of course is moot as it's a stupid idea to shut down people who say things that are political in nature.

I'll give you an example: how, exactly, do you give 'fairness' against someone saying 9/11 was an inside job? and why wouldn't libertarians get some 'fair air time' along with the totalitarians?

It's a jumbled stupid mess and this USSC would never stand for it.
 

Farang

Lifer
Jul 7, 2003
10,914
3
0
If the USSC won't stand for it then you've got nothing to worry about in the long run so this is pointless to worry about. I'm not arguing in support of the fairness doctrine I'm just annoyed by someone making dumb comments about something none of us know (the nature of a relationship between an Obama administration and Congress) with supreme confidence and snobbery without bothering to mention why he thinks that way or what evidence there is to support his prediction.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
67,482
4,155
126
The sheeple are money for the cunning. We won't have any fairness doctrine interfering with the money doctrine.
 

Dr. Zaus

Lifer
Oct 16, 2008
11,770
347
126
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
The sheeple are money for the cunning. We won't have any fairness doctrine interfering with the money doctrine.
no doubt, that would be unamerican... Just like not listening to hannity 3 hours a day.
 

Fern

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
Originally posted by: DixyCrat
-snip-
It's a jumbled stupid mess and this USSC would never stand for it.
Originally posted by: Farang
If the USSC won't stand for it then you've got nothing to worry about in the long run so this is pointless to worry about.
-snip-
The SCOTUS has already ruled on the so-called "Fairness Doctrine".

It passsed unanimously, but was a *limited* decision. As usual with the SCOTUS, make predictions at your own peril.

Fern
 

Robor

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
16,979
0
0
Originally posted by: UberNeuman
Originally posted by: Budmantom
Originally posted by: UberNeuman
Did someone help you type this post out?

Your mom did, how'd you know?
wow, my mum passed away back in 2003 - that would be a neat trick if she could have made your post for you.....
Always knew Budmantom had issues. Never imagined it was necro... :shocked:

 

Robor

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
16,979
0
0
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Yes, they will pass it. They have been promising their lib friends on the radio they will do it for a long time. Just the other day some lib congress critter said they were going to do it. With the likes of Pelosi and Reid in charge and with BHO in the whitehouse - it's a done deal for sure.
Libs on AM radio? Where? :confused:

Originally posted by: quest55720
Yes it is might even be the first bill president Obama signs into law. His stance on the issue is meaningless. He won't have the balls to veto any bill he will just be a rubberstamp for pelosi/reid. Then I am sure he will put someone in charge of the FCC whos only mission is to put fox news and talk radio out of business.
Sweet, no more Hannity? :thumbsup:
 

Fern

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
Originally posted by: Farang
-snip-
I'm just annoyed by someone making dumb comments about something none of us know (the nature of a relationship between an Obama administration and Congress) with supreme confidence and snobbery without bothering to mention why he thinks that way or what evidence there is to support his prediction.
No one can have confidence in how Obama will respond? I happen to agree with you 100%, just not how you may imagine.

BTW: No one knows "why he thinks that way" and so on. Nor do we have any evidence (track record or experience) to go on, but that doesn't stop his supporters; does it?

And what? Do you subscribe to the ridiculous idea below?

Originally posted by: eskimospy
-snip-
I honestly believe that all the people talking about how Obama will be at the mercy of the Congressional leaders don't seem to understand the first goddamned thing about how our government functions in this day and age. The President sets the agenda, as his branch is currently vastly more powerful than the Congress. Pelosi and Reid will be dancing to his tune, not the other way around.
A President at *war* with Congress gets nothing done. The Prez cannot originate a bill. The Prez can only veto one. A veto isn't passing anything. Nor can the Prez set any *agenda* in Congress, unless by persuasion; (s)he simply has NO Constitutional authority to do so.

Not many Presidents have successfully stood up to their own party when it had a controlling majority in Congress. The idea is absurd, they are politicians after all. The only one I can think of in recent memeory is Reagan, that's because he won in a huge landslide. Some will remember that Nixon won big too, but his own party forced him out; in politics victory is fleeting.

To get anything done, a President needs the support of his party in Congress. Assertions to the contrary as revisions of history, no Dem likes to admit that they thought Saddam had WMD yet they stood before all America beating their chests in bravado against Iraq. Hah, even the Clinton Admin made the overthrow of Saddam and national (and public) policy. To escape this reality one must fantasize all sorts of Constituitional contortions.

The Prez has basically only a *bully-pulpit* unless Congress *allows* him/her more. The fact that we've been stuck with a spineless one for so long does NOT change the Constitution.

To those who state Obama will have power above Congress, and so ignore the Constitution, please come on and state clearly that you think the Dem controlled Congress will act like a bunch of wimps. And please link us up with your evidence that Obama has ever stood up to the other Dems. It is said McCain has voted with GWB about 95% of the time, well Obama has voted with the Dem party about 100% of the time.

We've seen Obama run to the left (primary), then to the right (in the gen elect), anybody who claims to know what he'll do is an obvious *Fakir*.

I'll be surprised if he's as strong as Bill Clintom, who BTW couldn't controll his own party when they had the majority in both Houses of Congress. I see no reason to think any new Dem leaders in Congress will have small egos and act like puppies at Obama's feet.

I see too much *hopium* among those I thought would know better.

Fern
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
2
0
Even if the fairness doctrine is passed by the congress and signed by the President, the courts may rule it a violation of free speech. But things like satellite radio, satellite and cable television, and the internet are somewhat immune from censorship, and its there that the rats will run if the fairness doctrine is passed.

But at some point in time, some variant of the fairness doctrine will be needed, because we really need some form of campaign finance reform.

As it is, I imagine Rupert Murdock will be forced to sell his share of Fox, because
logic dictates it and a real FCC will figure out a way.

As it is, I sometimes listen to Limbaugh just to hear the fractured logic, and studiously do not buy from his commercial sponsors.
 

Starbuck1975

Lifer
Jan 6, 2005
14,663
1,887
126
With a supermajority, Democrats in Congress could quite easily reinstate the Fairness Doctrine, and all Obama would do is quietly rubber stamp it.

Pelosi, Kerry, Reid and a few others are on record as being in favor of reinstating the Fairness Doctrine...Obama is on record as being against it, so let's see if he can stand up against his own party's tendency towards censorship in the name of "fairness".
 

T2T III

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
12,899
1
0
How come the Fairness Doctrine would apply to just talk radio? How about other media? Newspapers such as: the New York Times, The Washington Post as well as television "news" stations to include MSNBC, CBS, etc.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
73,113
24,664
136
Originally posted by: Fern
Originally posted by: Farang
-snip-
I'm just annoyed by someone making dumb comments about something none of us know (the nature of a relationship between an Obama administration and Congress) with supreme confidence and snobbery without bothering to mention why he thinks that way or what evidence there is to support his prediction.
No one can have confidence in how Obama will respond? I happen to agree with you 100%, just not how you may imagine.

BTW: No one knows "why he thinks that way" and so on. Nor do we have any evidence (track record or experience) to go on, but that doesn't stop his supporters; does it?

And what? Do you subscribe to the ridiculous idea below?

Originally posted by: eskimospy
-snip-
I honestly believe that all the people talking about how Obama will be at the mercy of the Congressional leaders don't seem to understand the first goddamned thing about how our government functions in this day and age. The President sets the agenda, as his branch is currently vastly more powerful than the Congress. Pelosi and Reid will be dancing to his tune, not the other way around.
A President at *war* with Congress gets nothing done. The Prez cannot originate a bill. The Prez can only veto one. A veto isn't passing anything. Nor can the Prez set any *agenda* in Congress, unless by persuasion; (s)he simply has NO Constitutional authority to do so.

Not many Presidents have successfully stood up to their own party when it had a controlling majority in Congress. The idea is absurd, they are politicians after all. The only one I can think of in recent memeory is Reagan, that's because he won in a huge landslide. Some will remember that Nixon won big too, but his own party forced him out; in politics victory is fleeting.

To get anything done, a President needs the support of his party in Congress. Assertions to the contrary as revisions of history, no Dem likes to admit that they thought Saddam had WMD yet they stood before all America beating their chests in bravado against Iraq. Hah, even the Clinton Admin made the overthrow of Saddam and national (and public) policy. To escape this reality one must fantasize all sorts of Constituitional contortions.

The Prez has basically only a *bully-pulpit* unless Congress *allows* him/her more. The fact that we've been stuck with a spineless one for so long does NOT change the Constitution.

To those who state Obama will have power above Congress, and so ignore the Constitution, please come on and state clearly that you think the Dem controlled Congress will act like a bunch of wimps. And please link us up with your evidence that Obama has ever stood up to the other Dems. It is said McCain has voted with GWB about 95% of the time, well Obama has voted with the Dem party about 100% of the time.

We've seen Obama run to the left (primary), then to the right (in the gen elect), anybody who claims to know what he'll do is an obvious *Fakir*.

I'll be surprised if he's as strong as Bill Clintom, who BTW couldn't controll his own party when they had the majority in both Houses of Congress. I see no reason to think any new Dem leaders in Congress will have small egos and act like puppies at Obama's feet.

I see too much *hopium* among those I thought would know better.

Fern
Fern, it would appear that I have to lump you in with people who don't understand how our government works. All the president needs to originate bills is a single friendly congressman. You think out of five hundred thirty five members he can't find one to put up a bill that the president has entirely written from front to back? Don't be naive.

The President in the current system sets the agenda in Congress. Even Bush, with an adversarial Congress controlled by the other party largely controls what happens. This is because the executive has freedom of action, and the control of information. The President generally gets to act first, do what he wants, then if Congress doesn't like it they can get together and pass some laws to constrain him. When they ask for information about the President's actions, who do they ask? Executive branch agencies.

I know this isn't what you learned in civics class, but this is how the government actually functions. The President controls the agenda and the Congress, while by no means powerless, is heavily influenced to follow what he does.

As for 'evidence that he stood up to Democrats', huh? First, what bills are you referring to that you think he should have stood up to them on? Secondly, attempting to compare the actions of a first term junior senator with aspirations towards party leadership positions with the most powerful elected position on the planet and head of an adversarial branch to the Congress is absolutely silly. You might as well be saying "Well I don't know if you could make an independent decision as the manager of this McDonalds because you always did what you were told as the fry-guy".
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
73,113
24,664
136
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: eskimospy
No, Obama has specifically stated he does not support the fairness doctrine.
You don't honestly believe he'd veto it though over the wishes of Pelosi and Reid do you? :laugh:
Just how am I supposed to respond to your claim of hypothetical action (or non-action) by Obama against a hypothetical bill? Is it a standalone bill? Is it a rider on something else? How did it get past the Republican filibuster? There are lots of Democrats that don't support the fairness doctrine, so how did it get through the chambers of Congress?

I honestly believe that all the people talking about how Obama will be at the mercy of the Congressional leaders don't seem to understand the first goddamned thing about how our government functions in this day and age. The President sets the agenda, as his branch is currently vastly more powerful than the Congress. Pelosi and Reid will be dancing to his tune, not the other way around.
uhh... Seems you are the one that doesn't know a "goddamned" thing about how things work. Congress writes the bills genius. You can claim BHO would set "the agenda" but reality dictates he really only has as much power to set an agenda as congressional leaders give him. In this case, there is no way Pelosi and Reid are going to let him run things.

Keep up the "hope" though.... it's all you kids seem to be able to do these days...
Look, another person who is basing their view of government on a 7th grade civics class. Do you know how much of the major bills passed by Congress are in fact written by the Executive branch? And this is in a Congress controlled by the opposition party! The president routinely writes bills and gives them over to the Congress. You're right, they could ignore them and write their own bills, but they don't. You know why? Because of all the institutional advantages I mentioned in my earlier post.

All you have left to cling to now is some idea that you've conjured up that somehow, in defiance of the last century of American governance, that the weakest Congress in history is suddenly going to rise up and take over an executive branch that has grown utterly out of control, and is virtually immune from legislative sanction. That's really really stupid.

I have a fervent hope that Obama turns back the tide of near tyrannical power that the executive currently wields, for the good of the country. I wish Congress would have more influence over him, but people generally don't give up power... I won't hold my breath.
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,251
5
0
Originally posted by: DixyCrat
Come one, do you honestly think the democrats hate freedom of speech that much? .
Did you miss Obama sending out his calls to action to silence some critics of him on a Chicago radio station??

They did it twice.

Then they tried to get the DA to look at an ad about Obama and Ayers and get it pulled off the air for being illegal.

This is the guy who got every candidate in his first election disqualified on technical grounds. Screw the right of the people to choose the candidate of their choice.

The question is not whether they would LIKE to silence right wing radio, of course they would. The question is whether they will risk the political capital that it will take to get it done.
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
2
0
Originally posted by: T2T III
How come the Fairness Doctrine would apply to just talk radio? How about other media? Newspapers such as: the New York Times, The Washington Post as well as television "news" stations to include MSNBC, CBS, etc.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because talk radio and a good part of the television networks depend on the public airwaves for distribution. And the price for their license to use those air waves is to serve the public interests.
 

Fern

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
Originally posted by: eskimospy
-snip-
Fern, it would appear that I have to lump you in with people who don't understand how our government works. All the president needs to originate bills is a single friendly congressman. You think out of five hundred thirty five members he can't find one to put up a bill that the president has entirely written from front to back? Don't be naive.

The President in the current system sets the agenda in Congress. Even Bush, with an adversarial Congress controlled by the other party largely controls what happens. This is because the executive has freedom of action, and the control of information. The President generally gets to act first, do what he wants, then if Congress doesn't like it they can get together and pass some laws to constrain him. When they ask for information about the President's actions, who do they ask? Executive branch agencies.

I know this isn't what you learned in civics class, but this is how the government actually functions. The President controls the agenda and the Congress, while by no means powerless, is heavily influenced to follow what he does.
No, no and again, NO.

Bills originate in the House.

Who controls the House and every single committee? The Dems.

Bills must pass through committee before they are even considered for a vote on the floor.

All committees are chaired by a Dem.

If the Dems don't like a bill, it will languish in committee, it'll just never get voted out of committee, the chairperson need not permit it. Even if it did, Pelosi could *neglect* to schedule it for the floor.

No my friend, one needs far far more than a "single friendly congressman" to get anything done.

You vastly overstate the power of the Prez. To the extent the Prez gets anywhere what you cite, it's with the acquescence and willful participation of Congress.

Dang, even if everybody in the House and 99 senators loved you and wanted to pass your bill, it takes only one senator to *pocket it* and it'll never be passed (or even voted on in that chamber - meaning it dies)

Fern
 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
Originally posted by: Mani
It's a bogeyman for right wing talk show hosts to rile up their listeners (pretty much all they're good at any more) and that's it. It's not coming back and Obama won't push it as an issue.
No kidding - Rush and Hannity's heads would explode if they were ever required to present opposing views on the issues! Gah! BOOM! Explode, I say.
 

Robor

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
16,979
0
0
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Originally posted by: Mani
It's a bogeyman for right wing talk show hosts to rile up their listeners (pretty much all they're good at any more) and that's it. It's not coming back and Obama won't push it as an issue.
No kidding - Rush and Hannity's heads would explode if they were ever required to present opposing views on the issues! Gah! BOOM! Explode, I say.
Those guys? Absolutely impossible.
 

frostedflakes

Diamond Member
Mar 1, 2005
7,925
1
0
Originally posted by: T2T III
How come the Fairness Doctrine would apply to just talk radio? How about other media? Newspapers such as: the New York Times, The Washington Post as well as television "news" stations to include MSNBC, CBS, etc.
Because the FCC only has the authority to regulate public broadcasts.

At least, up until recently this has been the case. Their recent meddling in Comcast's affairs kind of sets a scary precedent, because it's a private network, not public.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
73,113
24,664
136
Originally posted by: Fern

No, no and again, NO.

Bills originate in the House.

Who controls the House and every single committee? The Dems.

Bills must pass through committee before they are even considered for a vote on the floor.

All committees are chaired by a Dem.

If the Dems don't like a bill, it will languish in committee, it'll just never get voted out of committee, the chairperson need not permit it. Even if it did, Pelosi could *neglect* to schedule it for the floor.

No my friend, one needs far far more than a "single friendly congressman" to get anything done.

You vastly overstate the power of the Prez. To the extent the Prez gets anywhere what you cite, it's with the acquescence and willful participation of Congress.

Dang, even if everybody in the House and 99 senators loved you and wanted to pass your bill, it takes only one senator to *pocket it* and it'll never be passed (or even voted on in that chamber - meaning it dies)

Fern
No, a single senator cannot pocket a bill and prevent a vote on it.

No, bills do not only originate in the House, only funding bills must originate there, the fairness doctrine obviously not being a funding bill.

No, all bills do not need to pass through committee, many of them can be brought directly to the floor.

My point with needing a single Congressman was that you stated the President cannot write legislation, that all he needs is a compliant Congressman to sponsor his bill, something easily found.

I do not vastly overstate the power of the President, I do not think you follow the workings of the Congress closely enough to realize the scope of executive influence. There's a reason why Bush, even with cratering approval ratings, can frequently get what he wants. The institutional advantages available to the executive are simply colossal. He controls the information, he has the loudest microphone, and his power is monolithic instead of factional. This is how the president so routinely beats down Congress without breaking a sweat.
 

OrByte

Diamond Member
Jul 21, 2000
9,299
137
106
Originally posted by: frostedflakes
Originally posted by: T2T III
How come the Fairness Doctrine would apply to just talk radio? How about other media? Newspapers such as: the New York Times, The Washington Post as well as television "news" stations to include MSNBC, CBS, etc.
Because the FCC only has the authority to regulate public broadcasts.

At least, up until recently this has been the case. Their recent meddling in Comcast's affairs kind of sets a scary precedent, because it's a private network, not public.
maybe the fairness doctrine can be revamped to include other media?

and what about the internet? how does that factor in? blogs? youtube? will youtube fall under the "media" umbrella?

How does the fairness doctrine get enforced exactly?

I think there are sooo many questions about this particular topic that it would be silly to assume anything at this point. Of course people in congress want to push some version of the "fairness doctrine" through to law...but at this point in time, given the biases and the slants we see in the media...and BOTH sides have been complaining as such....

...would it be a bad thing to explore?

Edit: i have to throw in this caveat: I'd rather we as a nation err on the side of freedom of speech then to see anything regulated like what the fairness doctrine proposes to enact. Im just throwing these questions out there to suggest that the game is early, and it would be silly to make assumptions that the fairness doctrine that we know of today would be created in law under an Obama Presidency.
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: eskimospy
No, Obama has specifically stated he does not support the fairness doctrine.
You don't honestly believe he'd veto it though over the wishes of Pelosi and Reid do you? :laugh:
Just how am I supposed to respond to your claim of hypothetical action (or non-action) by Obama against a hypothetical bill? Is it a standalone bill? Is it a rider on something else? How did it get past the Republican filibuster? There are lots of Democrats that don't support the fairness doctrine, so how did it get through the chambers of Congress?

I honestly believe that all the people talking about how Obama will be at the mercy of the Congressional leaders don't seem to understand the first goddamned thing about how our government functions in this day and age. The President sets the agenda, as his branch is currently vastly more powerful than the Congress. Pelosi and Reid will be dancing to his tune, not the other way around.
uhh... Seems you are the one that doesn't know a "goddamned" thing about how things work. Congress writes the bills genius. You can claim BHO would set "the agenda" but reality dictates he really only has as much power to set an agenda as congressional leaders give him. In this case, there is no way Pelosi and Reid are going to let him run things.

Keep up the "hope" though.... it's all you kids seem to be able to do these days...
Look, another person who is basing their view of government on a 7th grade civics class. Do you know how much of the major bills passed by Congress are in fact written by the Executive branch? And this is in a Congress controlled by the opposition party! The president routinely writes bills and gives them over to the Congress. You're right, they could ignore them and write their own bills, but they don't. You know why? Because of all the institutional advantages I mentioned in my earlier post.

All you have left to cling to now is some idea that you've conjured up that somehow, in defiance of the last century of American governance, that the weakest Congress in history is suddenly going to rise up and take over an executive branch that has grown utterly out of control, and is virtually immune from legislative sanction. That's really really stupid.

I have a fervent hope that Obama turns back the tide of near tyrannical power that the executive currently wields, for the good of the country. I wish Congress would have more influence over him, but people generally don't give up power... I won't hold my breath.
Buahahahahaha... talk about HOPElessly delusional....


Let us know when you want to come back to reality so we can continue...
 

Fern

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
Originally posted by: eskimospy
-snip-
He has power, but if his party is a sufficient minority (or won't support him), even his veto is useless.

Besides the bullypulpit, I don't think GWB has much over Congress other than his very real threat of veto. I'm not saying that he doesn't have control over the functions/agencies under the Exec branch, but without the threat of a sustainable veto Congress would be almost unchecked (the Judicial branch is still there).

Fern
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
73,113
24,664
136
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: eskimospy

Look, another person who is basing their view of government on a 7th grade civics class. Do you know how much of the major bills passed by Congress are in fact written by the Executive branch? And this is in a Congress controlled by the opposition party! The president routinely writes bills and gives them over to the Congress. You're right, they could ignore them and write their own bills, but they don't. You know why? Because of all the institutional advantages I mentioned in my earlier post.

All you have left to cling to now is some idea that you've conjured up that somehow, in defiance of the last century of American governance, that the weakest Congress in history is suddenly going to rise up and take over an executive branch that has grown utterly out of control, and is virtually immune from legislative sanction. That's really really stupid.

I have a fervent hope that Obama turns back the tide of near tyrannical power that the executive currently wields, for the good of the country. I wish Congress would have more influence over him, but people generally don't give up power... I won't hold my breath.
Buahahahahaha... talk about HOPElessly delusional....


Let us know when you want to come back to reality so we can continue...
Typical CAD. When confronted with someone who obviously knows a lot more about a subject than you, you run away with some stupid meaningless post. I've spent quite a lot of time in my life studying Congress. I'm not an expert, but I definitely know a lot more than the average joe, and I obviously know a lot more than you.

I don't care about 'continuing' with you, you are immune to reason. The only purpose in 'discussing' things with you is to document your demolition in the thread so that if other people read it, they don't fall for your bullshit. I have no illusions that I could ever dent your skull with facts or reasoned opinion.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY