Fighting liberal bias through legislation

[SuperJerk 0]

I'm also a little concerned that:

 

# Require institutions to offer a broad range of opinions and viewpoints;

 

Is not specifically political, therefore it is vague enough that it may open the door to teaching creationism or "evolution is just a theory" talk in college, which is insane and should be left to the likes of Bob Jones Uni.

Evolution is a mystery, slow changes no one sees.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Evolution is a mystery, slow changes no one sees.

Well, if they just said that in classes I guess I'd be happy. But only if they have the instrumental playing on a sound system.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

...Conservative Brigade? I thought it was the KKKonservative Brigade™. What happened? Lose your trademark?...

 

Other people type it like that -- I never have.

 

Anyway, it was kinda funny because my bitch of a prof would always make me the token Republican in my one class. Anything that she talked about she would make some snide-ass remark to me. Like one time we watched this tape of a journalist interviewing someone and she said "Any liberal bias in that?"

 

One highlight though was when I got a call from some guy at Pittsburgh's CBS affillate asking me to come to a news conference the next day, which would have required me skipping the cunt's class. I told the bitch about this and she was furious and discovered it was Howard Stern's news conference to announce is now-failed CBS network late-night show on Saturday nights. Now attending a Howard Stern press conference > this bitch's class, so I went. It was funny because there were some journalists that didn't realize these conferences were, well, not quite like a White House or City Government news conference. This bitch from the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette was saying to all of the other people in the room that she was going to blast Stern for his obscene material. However, once the video and audio started playing, and some lesbian reporter from Baltimore (?) asked her question, the PG reporterette didn't want to ask her question.

 

The next time I was in the cunt's class she asked me in front of the class about this experience and I goofed on that PG reporter, who I think was a friend of hers because she gave me such a scowl. She tried to defend her, but I ended up saying something like "If she's too cowardly to ask a question then I don't see how she got her job in the first place," and that was about it...

[Guest Wildbomb 4:20]

See, it's just completely ironic that someone so obviously Republican would be at Emerson, cause we're something like the fourth most-liberal school in the country. Honestly, sometimes I find myself being too conservative for this school, and I'm pretty damn liberal. When you have the Greens parading around the front of your school everyday, along with the Socialists, it gets a little weird.

 

Fun story, actually:

 

I was coming into my building one day and the Socialists were sitting out front with a sign saying "Arnold Schwarzenegger is a Nazi Schulz would be proud of." And they had some smart-ass mouthing off about how Arnie's violating all of the Bill of Rights, he doesn't have the right to do what he does, etc. So I wind up having the distinct honor and privilege of reminding these assclowns that the Bill of Rights don't apply to the states UNLESS you're talking about due process (ah, the 14th Amendment). He immediately shut up and took his table down...

 

In other news, it looks like I'm going to be doing some work for WHDH-TV, the NBC affiliate here in the city. We'll see how it goes...

 

--Ryan

I hate having the 6-10 AM news, though...

[SuperJerk 0]

So I wind up having the distinct honor and privilege of reminding these assclowns that the Bill of Rights don't apply to the states UNLESS you're talking about due process (ah, the 14th Amendment).

You're wrong.

 

 

edit: No, you're not, because you DID add the part about the 14th Amendment. My mistake.

Edited February 13, 2005 by RobotJerk

[Guest Wildbomb 4:20]

You're wrong.

 

Hate to really break it to you, but no, I'm right.

 

The states are NOT limited by the Bill of Rights. Notice, for instance, how the 1st Amendment talks about how CONGRESS shall pass no law...not the government, or anything else. The 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause only applies itself to the police powers authorized under the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Tenth Amendments.

 

Ever wonder why there can be laws that limit the speech of the people? I mean, there's the Schenk, Gitlow, and Whitney cases to refer to. Or even Near v. Minnesota. Then there's old common law, and sedition laws, that we can really get into if you want to argue the points.

 

Under the rulings of the Supreme Court and the U.S. Constitution, the states are given these powers under the 10th Amendment, and therefore are not subject to the United States Bill of Rights unless you are talking about due process. It's really quite simple, actually.

 

--Ryan

...if you want to bring up a valid case theory or something, be my guest, and I'll be happy to refute them with other U.S.S.C. cases...

[SuperJerk 0]

So I wind up having the distinct honor and privilege of reminding these assclowns that the Bill of Rights don't apply to the states UNLESS you're talking about due process (ah, the 14th Amendment).

 

No, you're not wrong , because you DID add the part about the 14th Amendment. My mistake.

 

The states are NOT limited by the Bill of Rights. Notice, for instance, how the 1st Amendment talks about how CONGRESS shall pass no law...not the government, or anything else. The 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause only applies itself to the police powers authorized under the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Tenth Amendments.

 

Ever wonder why there can be laws that limit the speech of the people? I mean, there's the Schenk, Gitlow, and Whitney cases to refer to. Or even Near v. Minnesota. Then there's old common law, and sedition laws, that we can really get into if you want to argue the points.

 

Under the rulings of the Supreme Court and the U.S. Constitution, the states are given these powers under the 10th Amendment, and therefore are not subject to the United States Bill of Rights unless you are talking about due process. It's really quite simple, actually.

 

While Gitlow's conviction was not overturned, the Court did establish that the 1st Amendment's protection of speech and press could not be impaired by the states, because of the 14th Amendment's due process clause.

 

The Supreme Court has applied the Bill of Rights to state governments by holding that most of its protections apply against the states as part of the meaning of the 14th Amendment's Due Process clause. As you noted, the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Tenth Amendments have been covered in other cases.

 

The Second Amendment deals specifically with states' right to have a militia, so it is already applied to th states by design.

 

To my knowledge, the 3rd Amendment has never been subjected to judicial review at the state or federal level, so your argument that it does not apply to the states is possibly accurate. However, the Amendment itself does not specify what level of government it is applying itself to.

 

And I'm not touching the 7th Amendment with a ten foot poll.

[Boon 0]

I'd just say it's less likely because liberals tend to be more concerned with enlightening the youth of today about Pressing Social Issues and conservatives would rather not worry and make money in a real job.

....

 

You're kidding, right?

 

Please tell me that you're not trying to be taken seriously w/ a post like that, b/c every shred of credibility that I held for what you were saying just went out the window.

 

 

Anyway. I'm not saying there is a liberal/conservative bias in the media, but I attended a lecture from a noted news analyst who noted that 85-90% of the people who work in the media identify themselves as liberal. Take that for what its worth. Interesting note- the lecture was held at a liberal university in Boston.

 

I think it's nearly impossible to report the news w/o putting a spin on it. I just can't find any evidence to support a claim that there is a conservative bias in the media outside of Fox (which as a conservative, I don't even watch). Can any of you?

[Guest Wildbomb 4:20]

But the precedent set by Gitlow is thus overturned in the Near vs. Minnesota case, which supported the Minnesota law against libel and slander while overturning its' prior restraint clause.

 

--Ryan

...although the state law is overturned in the name of the First Amendment, it dually supports the states' power to limit free speech...

[Jingus 0]

....

 

You're kidding, right?

 

Please tell me that you're not trying to be taken seriously w/ a post like that, b/c every shred of credibility that I held for what you were saying just went out the window.

It's a horrible stereotype, I know, but like a lot of stereotypes it's one with a grain of truth in it. In general, more liberals end up as teachers, and more conservatives become businessmen. (It is kind of a chicken-or-egg argument, too; does one's beliefs influence one's career, or vice-versa?)

[Boon 0]

If I had to, I'd argue that more businessmen become conservatives and more teachers become liberals. It's not uncommon for political affiliation to change as people get older.

 

Once people are making a ton on money, they support people who typically want to protect their interests.

[SuperJerk 0]

If I had to, I'd argue that more businessmen become conservatives and more teachers become liberals. It's not uncommon for political affiliation to change as people get older.

 

Once people are making a ton on money, they support people who typically want to protect their interests.

Good point.