I"m sure you would love MSNBC to go dark. Put a whole lot of people out of work because you disagree with their program hosts, now thats a real open minded American.
I would not be affected, one way or another, if the voice of the Democrat party (MSDNC) should go dark. I would smile a little while reading about the demise of the party voice, but it’s not something I would lose any sleep over. I sincerely doubt that many people would be out of work, compared with the number of lost jobs since the inauguration of the current administration. The U.S. economy lost 467,000 jobs in June 2009, with job losses of about 6.5 million since the recession began in December 2007.
But not to worry, our current president has promised to create or “save” something like 2.5 million jobs with his stimulus. Surely his compassion will place the status of his party voice (MSDNC) at the top of his priorities, and all the MSDNC production personnel, from the talking faces down to the lowly behind-the-camera technicians will be well taken care of - our current administration has increased unemployment compensation, don’t you know? Bankers, auto dealers and manufacturing plants, and multiple numbers of additional trades and blue collar employees have lost thousands of jobs under the “change” brought about by this administration, why should the last place TV medium suffer anything less?
Why are you so afraid of an opinion different than your own? I personally like Fox Noise, it gives me an insight into the minds of the people that have different opinions than myself. I believe Bill O'Rielly to be part of the republican propaganda machine,, Just like you believe Olberman to be part of the democratic propaganda machine (MSDNC),
Afraid? Give me some credit – I welcome dissenting opinions which differ in substance from mine, but only when based upon facts which are open to argument and debate.
but I wouldn't wish for a channel to go dark because I disagree with their politics, thats just plain cold and pretty small minded. Thats the attitude of a dictatorship, quash all disenting opinions. Is that what you are suggesting? (we did come close during the last administration)
Dictatorship, you say? Indeed, are you not making reference to the FDR administration, when Roosevelt, in a bold and miscalculated decision (1936) to direct an internal shift in the power of the judicial branch announced a plan to introduce legislation that would reform the federal judiciary. Under the guise of easing the backlog of cases that faced the "aged, overworked justices," Roosevelt intended to ask Congress for the power to appoint one additional judge to the federal judiciary (including the Supreme Court) for every justice who had reached the age of seventy but declined to retire. While his ostensible purpose was to increase the efficiency of the judiciary,
it was clear that Roosevelt was targeting six of the nine Supreme Court justices who had challenged his domestic programs. Justice Louis Brandeis spoke eloquently of this presidential attempt at heracy when he stated:
“This is the end of this business centralization, and I want you to go back and tell the president that we’re not going to let this president centralize everything. It’s come to an end."Is this what we can look forward to under the current administration? Has history come full circle?
Our founding fathers had something in mind when they signed the Articles of the Confederation on that fateful day in Philadelphia way back in 1787. Three branches of government, separation of powers, etc. etc.
