Video & Multimedia
Related: About this forumXenophobic Redneck wingers in SUV's who fear others
Im not sure I can even explain this; but its a public road (Trump voter with a no Hillary bumper sticker)
I think its the "Trump Effect" which implicitly makes this kind of crude behavior "ok"
More info
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2016/07/12/watch-conservative-redneck-tries-to-kill-photographer-with-suv-and-gets-arrested/
NoMoreRepugs
(9,512 posts)I base that on my 45+ years of going to my wife's family farm just outside the Ozarks.
Warpy
(111,456 posts)who wants to get to his house 'cause he's got to shit really bad.
This looks like my part of the country and I know the type really well.
An asshole is an asshole is an asshole and they all stink the same, no matter where they're from.
The guys filming might've been blocking his driveway because if they're not from around here, they might have trouble distinguishing the tire tracks through the scrub as anything formal.
C_U_L8R
(45,038 posts)that rightwing dbag sayin'...
"we're gonna make Americuh great again and
then I'll really kick your liberal pansy ass."
Sadly there are lot more of that creep.
And dumb as they are, they've figured out how to vote.
zebonaut
(3,688 posts)yuiyoshida
(41,871 posts)We still have to live with these people... who are even more emboldened to put in someone who will Rule this country with an Iron Fist. Its not like they will educate themselves and wake up to what's really going on. They have been brainwashed by Fox News and right wing propaganda...and yet, we still have to put up with their bullying and pulling crap that will make all of us shake our heads and wonder, wtf is wrong with these people??
Moostache
(9,897 posts)The FCC eliminated the Doctrine in 1987 (under Reagan), and in August 2011 (sadly, under Obama) the FCC formally removed the language that implemented the Doctrine.
----------------------------------------------
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-fairness-doctrine-in-one-post/2011/08/23/gIQAN8CXZJ_blog.html
What it was: The Fairness Doctrine, as initially laid out in the report, In the Matter of Editorializing by Broadcast Licensees, required that TV and radio stations holding FCC-issued broadcast licenses to (a) devote some of their programming to controversial issues of public importance and (b) allow the airing of opposing views on those issues. This meant that programs on politics were required to include opposing opinions on the topic under discussion. Broadcasters had an active duty to determine the spectrum of views on a given issue and include those people best suited to representing those views in their programming.
Additionally, the rule mandated that broadcasters alert anyone subject to a personal attack in their programming and give them a chance to respond, and required any broadcasters who endorse political candidates to invite other candidates to respond. However, the Fairness Doctrine is different from the Equal Time rule, which is still in force and requires equal time be given to legally qualified political candidates.
How it came about: In the Radio Act of 1927, Congress dictated that the FCC (and its predecessor, the Federal Radio Commission) should only issue broadcast licenses when doing so serves the public interest. In 1949, the FCC interpreted this more strictly to mean that licensees should include discussions of matters of public importance in their broadcasts, and that they should do so in a fair manner. It issued In the Matter of Editorializing by Broadcast Licensees, which announced the Fairness Doctrine, and began enforcing it.
How it was ended: The Fairness Doctrine sustained a number of challenges over the years. A lawsuit challenging the doctrine on First Amendment grounds, Red Lion Broadcasting Co., Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission , reached the Supreme Court in 1969. The Court ruled unanimously that while broadcasters have First Amendment speech rights, the fact that the spectrum is owned by the government and merely leased to broadcasters gives the FCC the right to regulate news content. However, First Amendment jurisprudence after Red Lion started to allow more speech rights to broadcasters, and put the constitutionality of the Fairness Doctrine in question.
There was no Fox News prior to 1987. It was not because Conservatives were any less Bat-shit insane either...it was simply illegal.
yuiyoshida
(41,871 posts)though congress or will that be a major effort?
Moostache
(9,897 posts)I can't say for sure how willing Hillary would be to push this. Honestly, I think the price in "political capital" would be as high or higher than Obama paid for going after healthcare (we got Obamacare, but not single payer or even a public option...though now at the end of his administration, President Obama is making the case for the public option once more).
The GOP and especially the right-wing noise media will be incensed at ANY attempts to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine...after all, they did not and could not exist when it was in place...so to them, it is an ACTUAL existential threat (unlike the fake hordes of dark people they like to blame everything on).
The best chances of getting it back (or even something similar installed) is going to come from the base and from people clamoring for it as an issue. Right now, we do not even hear about it....but 20 years ago gay marriage was "impossible" too!
PJMcK
(22,069 posts)Most people today do not get their television from broadcast outlets, they have cable. Accordingly, the Fairness Doctrine wouldn't apply to the cable companies because they are not leasing broadcast frequencies. Cable companies are not regulated by the federal government so there isn't any jurisdiction for regulating content.
It sucks but that's why Fox News has been able to create such an unfair and unbalanced network.
sulphurdunn
(6,891 posts)and that dim between the ears should be careful who he tries to push around.
packman
(16,296 posts)"... Gordon (the asshole in the SUV) had been arrested and was facing charges of felony assault with a deadly weapon, misdemeanor battery and misdemeanor vandalism.
Gordons bail was set at $30,000. His arraignment was tentatively set for July 13"
[URL=.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL]
GORDON, YOU SHOULDN'T HAVE DONE THAT - BAD ASSHOLE, BAD
http://www.rawstory.com/2016/07/raging-anti-hillary-nut-faces-assault-charges-for-trying-to-run-over-photographer-with-suv/
byronius
(7,411 posts)Thanks.
busterbrown
(8,515 posts)or any other deep red state?... Just asking..
busterbrown
(8,515 posts)Nice ending..for a change!!
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)byronius
(7,411 posts)As soon as the idjit got out of the barge I'm afraid I would have lost my temper.
Sometimes my father just comes out of me, no matter how much therapy I go through. Usually I can keep it in check.
Now, my father -- would have followed the guy home and done terrible things to him, his family, his extended family and people that owed him money. For months or years. Because Texas Aggie.
That was always what my dad did, and he always had a .45 under the seat. I'm an order of magnitude less confrontational, but this particular yahoo would probably have tripped even my glued-down triggers.
Response to byronius (Reply #9)
Post removed
COLGATE4
(14,732 posts)just a good ol' boy, never doin' no harm...
63splitwindow
(2,657 posts)Kelselsius
(50 posts)When this guy was looking for a car, he was thinking, "I'm a bully. I need a car to reflect that. What is the largest, most gas guzzling, closest thing to a tank can I buy?"
The Excursion was so huge and impractical that Ford stopped making them in 2005.
KansDem
(28,498 posts)It read, "Drive a Hybrid, I Need the Gas."
(2'03"
voteearlyvoteoften
(1,716 posts)Without video or witnesses this could have ended with death or injury. He wanted to hurt them.
byronius
(7,411 posts)Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)All they know now is they HATE Hillary and their own frustration over feeling like their country was stolen from them by a bunch of commies.
Some want to go out in a blaze of glory.
heresAthingdotcom
(160 posts)California
Think About it
..
Masked Dissident
(84 posts)My title says it all.
Warpy
(111,456 posts)plus a couple of misdemeanors, including property damage.
The scary part is that he's a commercial pilot. Er, was, the felony charge will get his license suspended until his trial and pulled if he's convicted. He'd better hope he can plea bargain down to a misdemeanor.
I looked a few things up and while the film crew might have been parked close to a driveway, it was a driveway on the other side of the road from this clown's property. So this was pure road rage/bullying. Unfortunately, there's no record of a breathalyzer test being given. I suspect that was the main problem here.
Oh, and he had a gun in his SUV. He just wasn't stupid enough to pull it.