C_Clayton_Jones
Diamond Member
Well, at least you got PC to actually type something of her own, rather than just cut n paste.
End The First Amendment???
- Thread starter PoliticalChic
- Start date
Well, at least you got PC to actually type something of her own, rather than just cut n paste.
PoliticalChic
Diamond Member
- Thread starter
- #182
Now if only we could get you Liberals to do your own thinking.
Yet our Liberal accepts doctrines, policies, programs, that make no sense, or are actually destructive, for the offer of acceptance of the herd…or the opposite, expulsion if one doesn’t support same.
a. It is not that our Liberals do not care about rectitude, but he cannot afford to notice the insanity. The size and power of the group allows the individual to submerge his doubts…but at the cost of obedience and the surrender his individuality.
David Mamet
idb
Gold Member
- Dec 26, 2010
- 14,986
- 2,590
- 265
Oh well, Mr Jones...it was good while it lasted...
JakeStarkey
Diamond Member
- Aug 10, 2009
- 168,037
- 16,527
- 2,165
- Banned
- #184
M. D.'s lack of logic as well as his confused philosophy make entertaining reading. 
PoliticalChic
Diamond Member
- Thread starter
- #185
See the danger in the following?
""We've had nine days of lies over what happened because they can't dare say it's a terrorist attack, and the press won't push this," said Caddell. "Yesterday there was not a single piece in The New York Times over the question of Libya. Twenty American embassies, yesterday, are under attack. None of that is on the national news. None of it is being pressed in the papers."
Caddell added that it is one thing for the news to have a biased view, but "It is another thing to specifically decide that you will not tell the American people information they have a right to know."
Pat Caddell: Media Have Become An "Enemy Of The American People" | RealClearPolitics
The danger is in believing that there is a government solution to the fact that the main stream media should in any way be curtailed.
Earlier in his term, the Obama administration tossed around the idea that failing newspapers should get government support....of course the danger of that was easier to imagine.
Only an aware public, sensitive to the danger of a less-than-even-handed Fourth Estate can solve this problem.....
....and it is a problem.
""We've had nine days of lies over what happened because they can't dare say it's a terrorist attack, and the press won't push this," said Caddell. "Yesterday there was not a single piece in The New York Times over the question of Libya. Twenty American embassies, yesterday, are under attack. None of that is on the national news. None of it is being pressed in the papers."
Caddell added that it is one thing for the news to have a biased view, but "It is another thing to specifically decide that you will not tell the American people information they have a right to know."
Pat Caddell: Media Have Become An "Enemy Of The American People" | RealClearPolitics
The danger is in believing that there is a government solution to the fact that the main stream media should in any way be curtailed.
Earlier in his term, the Obama administration tossed around the idea that failing newspapers should get government support....of course the danger of that was easier to imagine.
Only an aware public, sensitive to the danger of a less-than-even-handed Fourth Estate can solve this problem.....
....and it is a problem.
JQPublic1
Gold Member
- Aug 10, 2012
- 14,220
- 1,544
- 280
Liberals usually do think for themselves. These are the people that realize that liberalism is the only defense We The People have against unbridled Capitalism. On the contrary, working class people who politically align themselves with right wing agendas are working against their own economic interests. Nice try, but we gotcha!
PoliticalChic
Diamond Member
- Thread starter
- #187
See....I proclaim that Liberals....also known as 'reliable Democrat voters,' don't think and merely imbibe the bumper-sticker logic they are fed....
...and you pop up with this:
"...the only defense We The People have against unbridled Capitalism."
Really, really stupid.
Want to see how stupid?
Watch this:
Michael Moore tells CNN's Anderson Cooper that capitalism as we know it is over. Moore say capitalism is where "the problem" is. Moore was broadcasting from "Occupy Oakland."
"So, let's not use the old definition where we think -- when we say capitalism, we're talking about 2011. 2011 capitalism is an evil system set up to benefit the few at the expense of the many. That's what happened, and that's what people are tired of. Which is too bad for the capitalists because I think a lot of people, perhaps in this crowd, probably used to support the 'old-style' of capitalism," Moore said on CNN.
"So, what system do you want?" Anderson Cooper asked Moore.
"Well there's no system right now that exists. We're going to create that system. This movement, this movement in the next year, or two, or few years is going to create a democratic economic system. That's the most important thing. Whatever we come up with it has to have at its core -- the American people are going to be the one's controlling this economy. We're going to have a say, a big say, the say in how this economy is run," Moore said.
Moore says the Occupy group and himself have "declared" the current economic system as over. "It's just a matter of time until we make that happen," Moore said.
Michael Moore: We're Going To Replace Capitalism As We Know It | RealClearPolitics
More?
"Marxism rested on the assumption that the condition of the working classes would grow ever worse under capitalism, that there would be but two classes: one small and rich, the other vast and increasingly impoverished, and revolution would be the anodyne that would result in the common good.
But by the early 20th century, it was clear that this assumption was completely wrong! Under capitalism, the standard of living of all was improving: prices falling, incomes rising, health and sanitation improving, lengthening of life spans, diets becoming more varied, the new jobs created in industry paid more than most could make in agriculture, housing improved, and middle class industrialists and business owners displaced nobility and gentry as heroes."
https://www.hillsdale.edu/news/imprimis/archive/issue.asp?year=2007&month=05
But, hey.....thanks for showing up!
Can never have too many dunces espousing Liberalism!
M.D. Rawlings
Classical Liberal
Yeah, right. M. D., you certainly are not a classical liberal. Ans since you redefine as you continue, you can claim to be Bugs Bunny.
LOL! A libertarian, like the American conservative, is a person who embraces the classical liberalism of the Anglo-American tradition, ya damn fool!
Have you seen this?
1. There is no shortage of hypotheses about what the tea party movement is. Some embrace it as a revival of traditional conservatism. Many insist it is ginned up by billionaire funders as a means to fight regulations. Others view it as arch-social conservative Republicans, motivated by divisive issues like abortion, gay rights or even racial angst.
2. But all these explanations are missing much of the story. Libertarian attitudes are fueling roughly half the tea party activists, according to our new Cato Institute survey. These libertarian tea partiers believe the less government the better and dont see a role for government in promoting traditional values. This is a big reason why the movement has largely focused on economic matters, resisting attempts to add social issues to its agenda.
3. Today, libertarians and conservatives are united in their anger -- 79 percent of tea party libertarians are angry about Washington, compared to 74 percent of tea party conservatives. Libertarians may again have led the way. Opinion: Tea party's other half - David Kirby and Emily Ekins - POLITICO.com
Well, no, not specifically. But I'm a Tea Partier and these articles accurately summarize the ebb and flow of the movement's membership. The only thing I would caution the reader about goes to the idea that the more libertarian faction of the Tea Party doesn't "see a role for government in promoting 'traditional values'."
The problem with that idea is that it's not the government's role to promote any particular set of cultural values at all. Period.
Wait for it. . . .
The government must, however, adhere to the commands of certain principles commonly lumped in with things that have come to be thought of as mere "traditional values" if it is to be a legitimate, just and stable government.
To the point: I'm a Lockean.
Locke, of course, was the preeminent influence on the socio-political theory of the Founders and as the father of lazier fair socio-economics he is generally regarded to be the leading philosopher of the Anglo-American tradition of classical liberalism. The less interference of the government in the affairs of the people, from the exchange of ideas to the exchange of goods and services, the better.
Hence, we have the common practicalities and vicissitudes of liberty relative to the limits of government power.
However, Locke extrapolated his theory of government from the socio-political ramifications of Judeo-Christianity's moral system of thought. He held that (1) the biological family of nature and (2) the sanctity of human life were the first principles of private property, the security of which, backed by an armed citizenry, serves as the practical bulwark against the ever-threatening usurpations of government against the free exercise of the natural rights imparted by the Creator.
Hence, the foundation of liberty.
Libertarianism is merely a semi-definitive constellation of limits on government power . . . suspended in mid-air.
Hence, the operative difference between the libertarian and the conservative, in terms of their shared political heritage, goes to a disruption, as it were, in the premise-to-conclusion flow of Lockean theory. One faction has a rather fluid notion of limited government, while the other emphasis the legitimate parameters of human behavior. The former is subject to endless revision and is unsustainable sans the guiding principles of the foundation. Both intellectual intuition and historical experience, especially recent historical experience, reveal the truth of that. The foundation consists of the socio-political aspects of specific moral imperatives grounded in Providence, the Source and Guarantor of human life and liberty.
(Note: one need not believe in the existence of God or in the entire slate of the mystical or theological teachings of Judeo-Christianity in order to appreciate the necessities of the foundation. Allow me to expose the ignorance or, in some cases, the disingenuousness of some contemporary thinkers who make much ado about nothing, with the smarminess of the pseudo-intellectual superiority routinely exhibited by lefty, over the fact that many of the Founders were Deists. First, most were not. Second, even if most were . . . it's the socio-political ramifications of Judeo-Christianity's moral tradition that matters. Both the Deist and the Christian of the Anglo-American Enlightenment embraced the fundamentals of Judeo-Christianity's moral system of thought and, therefore, the latter's socio-political ramifications!)
The society that fails to properly balance the respective concerns of security and liberty, for example, will inevitably be blindsided by tyranny, so too will the society obsessed with freedom sans a respectful regard for the legitimate parameters of human behavior. The freedom of the latter is merely the stuff of license and perversion systematically imprisoning it. And while the foundation of liberty can never be emphasized enough, one who errantly concludes that the government must prohibit any number of immoral practices will never fully appreciate the self-sustaining properties of liberty, which naturally instill morally responsible behavior in the body politic.
Beyond certain imperatives, governmentally imposed morality in our post-feudal world will inevitably give way to the sentimental emotionalism of collectivist redistribution schemes raised against the fundamental concerns of private property and, therefore, individual liberty; it will inevitably be hijacked by Pollyannaish little pricks like C_Clayton_Jones-Ahmadinejad, boot-lick statists, brutish bureaucrats encouraging the depravity and dependency of fraudulent rights and entitlements.
In other words, there are in fact some things the government is obliged to do in order to uphold the fundamental rights of the people, maintain a just and stable social compact. There are certain things that the body politic must never willingly permit an individual to do, and there are certain things that the body politic should never officially condone, though it need not, necessarily, prohibit or condemn them. And, then, on the other hand, there are things government should never do.
If the body politic permits the government to disregard the common defense of the people, the common designs of nature relative to the natural state of man and/or the imperatives of nature's God: the actual outcome will always entail an illegitimate increase in the size and the scope and the power of the government. The bigger the government, the smaller the people. The extent to which the government is permitted to disregard these things is the extent to which the people's security in their private property and fundamental liberties will be lost.
Neither of today's parties adequately reflect the ethos of America's founding; however, in my opinion, all classical liberals should rally around the Republican Party and strive to make its platform and its representatives more faithfully adhere to the principles thereof, not waste their efforts on marginal parties or split their vote among them. Most of the participants in the Tea Party movement, including its more libertarian members, get that.
We are up against a Democratic Party that eschews the Anglo-American tradition of liberty forged during the Enlightenment in favor of the Continental European tradition of collectivist tyranny, that is to say, the moon-barking madness of Rousseaunian-Marxist Utopianism, which, in the West, is rooted in the Platonian political theory of The Republic, that oh-so brave new world of ''enlightened'' bureaucracy, in truth, that authoritarian theocracy sans any gods but the self-anointed of the temporal realm.
Oh yes, indeed, it's an ancient, festering pile of statist crap handed down over the centuries under a slew of guises.
M.D. Rawlings
Classical Liberal
M. D.'s lack of logic as well as his confused philosophy make entertaining reading.
Well, then, you'll have more to entertain yourself with as I didn't intend to submit what I had from yesterday, as I had only 15 minutes to write it. Something came up. I needed another 15 to 20 minutes to flesh out the rough draft and add some finishing thoughts. The finished version is in some ways dramatically different throughout.
I deleted the unfinished product and reposted the finished one. See link:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/media/249910-end-the-first-amendment-13.html#post6087391
Now that the topic has shifted somewhat we have a nicely placed juxtaposition of the monosyllabic sloganeering, or as PoliticalChick puts it, the mindless bumper-sticker drivel, conceived by others and regurgitated on command by sheep, up against an accurate summary of the founding American ethos, not the phony, idiotic notions about it. You know, the ideal from which the greatest nation in history was forged . . . as todays leftists delude themselves about what ails the Republic (which is, in reality, the aspects of their corrupt and destructive ideology that have been imposed on America through the years) and prattle about further abandoning it.
The confused philosophy you talk about with its lack of logic . . . would be that of Locke and the Founders, dumbass, though make no mistake about it, I can talk and write about it in original prose arising from a profound and penetrating understanding of it. I own it in my own right. No. It would be a centuries-old and well-established philosophy, light years beyond your kin, that you think to dismiss out-of-hand. So your unqualified, unexplained, unsubstantiated one-liner criticisms are of little use or importance, including your stupid separation of classical liberalism and libertarianism.
Should you care to actually join the conversation in any constructive or credible way so we can further expose just how stupid you are for giggles, let us know. Of course, you're trolling. I see that. I know that. But I'm writing for others. Hence, in the meantime, you're dismissed and will be ignored.
ta ta
emilynghiem
Constitutionalist / Universalist
Hi PC: It's not just the Left. People on all sides "want free speech" when it aligns with their positions and values, and then seek to censor and stop when "freedom of speech" or "freedom of religion" is used to threaten THEIR views. This is just human selfish one-sidedness.
Some recent examples of people being onesided when they don't agree with how
others seek to exercise freedom of speech or religion under the Constitution:
a. health care. before this bill, people/politicians who were pro-choice argued against opponents abusing govt authority to mandate laws affecting their individual freedom of choice. people/politicans who were pro-life argued that when life was at stake, it was necessary to put Constitutional rights of the defenseless above the rights of the mother or others who demanded free choice. Now suddenly the tables are turned and the shoe is on the other foot: liberals who support the bill claim it is necessary to save lives even at the expense of individual freedom; and conservatives who had no problem with govt interfering with free choice, suddenly demand that govt has no business dictating or penalizing citizens' choice in health care.
b. abortion laws vs. gun laws. Both sides will argue that govt cannot regulate whichever pet issue (abortion or guns) represents the line they draw in the sand where govt cannot cross.
But if you notice, most conservatives will only argue this principle of limited govt when it defends THEIR views, but if not, they have NO PROBLEM asking or even demanding/expecting govt to impose on the opposing views of others; just not their own.
Same with liberals, as with the health care example above. When pro-choice arguments are made against criminalizing women for abortion, that's one thing. When it applies to penalizing conservatives for demanding choice in how to pay for health care, suddenly that's different! With gun laws, abortion laws: one side argues over having unrestricted freedom as a principle, and people need to be trusted to take responsibility, the other says that freedom is too easily abused and needs to be regulated by govt. One side says people are going to bypass the laws anyway, so regulations will only hurt the law-abiding people, etc.; but then what happens when the opposing group make the same argument for their views?
c. religious freedom, for atheists, Christians, Muslims. Whatever side someone is on, in politically motivated lawsuits or legislation pursued "to make a statement" against another person's beliefs, they are willing to compromise the religious freedom of whichever group is a threat to theirs; instead of resolving the conflicts where nobody loses their freedom or imposes on each other.
Now in general, I DO find that Conservatives tend to be more apt to respect the Constitution, and personally I've had more success with Conservatives rather than fellow Democrats to respect and consider BOTH sides of arguments with respect to Constitutional principles and protections.
However, the recent cases of lawsuits and legislation over Shariah Law reveal the equal willingness of Conservative politics to overstep Constitutional bounds and run over religious freedom of law-abiding citizens by writing laws so broadly they essential ban legal practice and religious freedom for Muslims by their affiliation, instead of distinguishing religious abuses from lawful practice that is protected under the First Amendment. [The AZ immigration bill also overstepped bounds in its "overzealous" approach to taking a stand against labor abuses, where parts were written so broadly as to be blatantly unconstitutional such as prohibiting hand signals which is not even enforceable. So this serves as another example where Conservatives also imposed a bias in laws prohibiting free speech. What I respect inthat case was the admission that state laws overstepped into federal authority, and how the laws can still be corrected to keep the constitutional parts; whereas Obama has yet to acknowledge the health care mandates are unconstitutional on its face, and belong to the states.]
Some people argue that Bush's Patriot Act overstepped Constitutional bounds, and others argue that Obama's use of drone attacks and also bypassing due process (as with the killing and disposal of Bin Laden) overstepped the bounds of law but was not questioned as Bush was attacked for his trial and hanging of Saddam Hussein criticized as railroading.
There's political bias and "selective" criticism/rationalizational
from both sides.
Whatever side you align with it is easier to see the bias of the other side in contrast.
People are equally self-serving and hypocritical when it comes to defending their party lines.
That is the nature of the partisan gameplaying in the media, and I have no idea which came first the chicken or the egg, did people's tendency to bully down other groups come first and then the politics followed, or did the politics incite people to bully back and forth?
Some recent examples of people being onesided when they don't agree with how
others seek to exercise freedom of speech or religion under the Constitution:
a. health care. before this bill, people/politicians who were pro-choice argued against opponents abusing govt authority to mandate laws affecting their individual freedom of choice. people/politicans who were pro-life argued that when life was at stake, it was necessary to put Constitutional rights of the defenseless above the rights of the mother or others who demanded free choice. Now suddenly the tables are turned and the shoe is on the other foot: liberals who support the bill claim it is necessary to save lives even at the expense of individual freedom; and conservatives who had no problem with govt interfering with free choice, suddenly demand that govt has no business dictating or penalizing citizens' choice in health care.
b. abortion laws vs. gun laws. Both sides will argue that govt cannot regulate whichever pet issue (abortion or guns) represents the line they draw in the sand where govt cannot cross.
But if you notice, most conservatives will only argue this principle of limited govt when it defends THEIR views, but if not, they have NO PROBLEM asking or even demanding/expecting govt to impose on the opposing views of others; just not their own.
Same with liberals, as with the health care example above. When pro-choice arguments are made against criminalizing women for abortion, that's one thing. When it applies to penalizing conservatives for demanding choice in how to pay for health care, suddenly that's different! With gun laws, abortion laws: one side argues over having unrestricted freedom as a principle, and people need to be trusted to take responsibility, the other says that freedom is too easily abused and needs to be regulated by govt. One side says people are going to bypass the laws anyway, so regulations will only hurt the law-abiding people, etc.; but then what happens when the opposing group make the same argument for their views?
c. religious freedom, for atheists, Christians, Muslims. Whatever side someone is on, in politically motivated lawsuits or legislation pursued "to make a statement" against another person's beliefs, they are willing to compromise the religious freedom of whichever group is a threat to theirs; instead of resolving the conflicts where nobody loses their freedom or imposes on each other.
Now in general, I DO find that Conservatives tend to be more apt to respect the Constitution, and personally I've had more success with Conservatives rather than fellow Democrats to respect and consider BOTH sides of arguments with respect to Constitutional principles and protections.
However, the recent cases of lawsuits and legislation over Shariah Law reveal the equal willingness of Conservative politics to overstep Constitutional bounds and run over religious freedom of law-abiding citizens by writing laws so broadly they essential ban legal practice and religious freedom for Muslims by their affiliation, instead of distinguishing religious abuses from lawful practice that is protected under the First Amendment. [The AZ immigration bill also overstepped bounds in its "overzealous" approach to taking a stand against labor abuses, where parts were written so broadly as to be blatantly unconstitutional such as prohibiting hand signals which is not even enforceable. So this serves as another example where Conservatives also imposed a bias in laws prohibiting free speech. What I respect inthat case was the admission that state laws overstepped into federal authority, and how the laws can still be corrected to keep the constitutional parts; whereas Obama has yet to acknowledge the health care mandates are unconstitutional on its face, and belong to the states.]
Some people argue that Bush's Patriot Act overstepped Constitutional bounds, and others argue that Obama's use of drone attacks and also bypassing due process (as with the killing and disposal of Bin Laden) overstepped the bounds of law but was not questioned as Bush was attacked for his trial and hanging of Saddam Hussein criticized as railroading.
There's political bias and "selective" criticism/rationalizational
from both sides.
Whatever side you align with it is easier to see the bias of the other side in contrast.
People are equally self-serving and hypocritical when it comes to defending their party lines.
That is the nature of the partisan gameplaying in the media, and I have no idea which came first the chicken or the egg, did people's tendency to bully down other groups come first and then the politics followed, or did the politics incite people to bully back and forth?
Last edited:
daveman
Diamond Member
You're not qualified to determine for me what my economic interests are.
Stop pretending you are.
JQPublic1
Gold Member
- Aug 10, 2012
- 14,220
- 1,544
- 280
HAHAHAHA! If you are a blue collar worker that supports the Republican agenda SOMEBODY has to drag your dumb arse back to reality. It might as well be me!
JQPublic1
Gold Member
- Aug 10, 2012
- 14,220
- 1,544
- 280
You are good at hurling invectives and insults. Too bad the content of your posts doesn't match the delivery of your megalomaniacal rants. You aren't nearly as "smart'" as you think you are.
Stupidity is using Michael Moore as the guru of liberalism when he isn't! Do you even know the meaning of liberalism?
Another thing: Your impromptu history lessons left out the Great Depression and the near economic collapse of 2009, both at the hands of Republicans. Did you forget that the socialist, liberal democrat FDR saved us from the GD? Obama will prevail to resolve the Bush whacked economy and repeat the Democratic legacy. You can call FDRs lberalism stupid if you wish, but the glaring reality of history makes YOU the fool!
- Sep 16, 2012
- 66,897
- 62,678
- 3,605
Hey all. Interesting discussions here. One of the more interesting threads on the board. Frankly, I would think that this thread would die rather quick. It just goes to show how wrapped up people's egos can be in their candidate. But then, I have to claim ignorance here, I don't watch TV, and I haven't bothered to Google the POTUS speech to the UN regarding this issue. Honestly, I don't give a shit.
I know that the political elites will play the masses, psychologically like toys. They will use these incidents to manipulate and pass laws that suit them. It's all bunk. Like anyone has any power over what happens anyway. We here on this site, we are the ones that care, but it takes mobilization of the masses to really stop something important. And even then, there is no guarantee any more. I don't know when the time comes, what will happen, but who knows. . . People stopped SOPA, and PIPA, but it seems clear CISPA will clear anyway, and before you know it, this whole thing will be a non-issue and the MSM will own everyone's mind once again. Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia The masses and web sites rallied against the former two because they thought entertainment and sharing were at stake. . . hell, this is just political speech, right? The corporations don't care, they have a seat at the table. The populations doesn't care, the new NFL season and AI season have started, and it's just about time to start your Christmas shopping. As long as the gladiators and the Christians are still thrown into the coliseum for all to watch, let Rome burn, right?
When it comes down to it, the Freedom of Speech is one of our most cherished and absolute rights, but it is already monopolized by corporations via TV and radio networks. So many of the in the public's minds are, really, not their own. So the very thought that any person working for the state would even hint that private individuals could not say, publish, print, video tape, make what they want in America, and that there would be people on this thread that would continue to even entertain this idea? Insanity. Sheer lunacy. It really doesn't matter which party you belong to. And frankly, if it were Romney that were in office, I could see him doing the same speech, and taking the same position. The global elites are all the same. American voters should stick together on this one, Fuck the politicians, Fuck them both. They have more allegiance to international politicians and their counterparts than they do to the American people. If they weren't so busy being the corporations and banks bitches, maybe they would stand up for the rights of the people.
The only time the "Freedom of Speech" matters to these guy is when it comes to being able to spend for unlimited amounts of money on campaign propaganda to condition the masses to give unconditional love and ego identification to the coke or pepsi criminal of their choice. In reality, to take the corruption out of the system, elections probably should be publicly funded. But that's a whole other thread, ain't it?
In keeping with the theme of the thread, I thought everyone should know, this is National Banned Book Week. Yep, that's right.
Read them!
How many of these books are in fact banned to curtail opening minds into new avenues of political thought? I would hazard to guess at least over a third of them. Don't children deserve better? I see the results of people not having read those books that our compulsory schools don't want them to every time I spend some time on here. Only if you were in an AP class in high school, went to college and took advanced level English lit. classes, or had some initiative, have you read the books that they don't want you to read.
The really bad (good) ones? They don't even bother putting on the list or telling any one about...
I know that the political elites will play the masses, psychologically like toys. They will use these incidents to manipulate and pass laws that suit them. It's all bunk. Like anyone has any power over what happens anyway. We here on this site, we are the ones that care, but it takes mobilization of the masses to really stop something important. And even then, there is no guarantee any more. I don't know when the time comes, what will happen, but who knows. . . People stopped SOPA, and PIPA, but it seems clear CISPA will clear anyway, and before you know it, this whole thing will be a non-issue and the MSM will own everyone's mind once again. Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia The masses and web sites rallied against the former two because they thought entertainment and sharing were at stake. . . hell, this is just political speech, right? The corporations don't care, they have a seat at the table. The populations doesn't care, the new NFL season and AI season have started, and it's just about time to start your Christmas shopping. As long as the gladiators and the Christians are still thrown into the coliseum for all to watch, let Rome burn, right?
When it comes down to it, the Freedom of Speech is one of our most cherished and absolute rights, but it is already monopolized by corporations via TV and radio networks. So many of the in the public's minds are, really, not their own. So the very thought that any person working for the state would even hint that private individuals could not say, publish, print, video tape, make what they want in America, and that there would be people on this thread that would continue to even entertain this idea? Insanity. Sheer lunacy. It really doesn't matter which party you belong to. And frankly, if it were Romney that were in office, I could see him doing the same speech, and taking the same position. The global elites are all the same. American voters should stick together on this one, Fuck the politicians, Fuck them both. They have more allegiance to international politicians and their counterparts than they do to the American people. If they weren't so busy being the corporations and banks bitches, maybe they would stand up for the rights of the people.
The only time the "Freedom of Speech" matters to these guy is when it comes to being able to spend for unlimited amounts of money on campaign propaganda to condition the masses to give unconditional love and ego identification to the coke or pepsi criminal of their choice. In reality, to take the corruption out of the system, elections probably should be publicly funded. But that's a whole other thread, ain't it?
In keeping with the theme of the thread, I thought everyone should know, this is National Banned Book Week. Yep, that's right.
Read them!
http://www.ala.org/advocacy/banned
How many of these books are in fact banned to curtail opening minds into new avenues of political thought? I would hazard to guess at least over a third of them. Don't children deserve better? I see the results of people not having read those books that our compulsory schools don't want them to every time I spend some time on here. Only if you were in an AP class in high school, went to college and took advanced level English lit. classes, or had some initiative, have you read the books that they don't want you to read.
The really bad (good) ones? They don't even bother putting on the list or telling any one about...
PoliticalChic
Diamond Member
- Thread starter
- #195
"...left out the Great Depression and the near economic collapse of 2009, both at the hands of Republicans."
Oh, man....you are the fool....I mean 'the reliable Democrat voter."
A neg from you??? You insignificant gnat...
...and in your post I can hear the snuffling of the ubiquitous pigs of the Left
Watch this:
1. In 1935, the Brookings Institution (left-leaning) delivered a 900-page report on the New Deal and the National Recovery Administration, concluding that on the whole it retarded recovery.
The Real Deal - Society and Culture - AEI
FDR took a recession and turned it into the 'Great Depression."
2. The mortgage meltdown is directly attributable to Democrat/Liberal/Progressive policies:
FDR created the problems via the GRE's, Fannie and Freddy...Carter's CRA,....Clinton had an even more stringent CRA, and Cisneros and Cumomo at HUD...and Frank and Dodd prevented reform.
You uneducated dolt....Waving your ignorance around your head like some majestic frond.
I would call you a bird brain, but Psittacine species, parrots, have a brain to body ration equal to that of chimpanzees.
As such, parrots are the smartest of all birds with the cognitive capacity of a five-year-old child.
Dont you wish that that could be said of you?
PoliticalChic
Diamond Member
- Thread starter
- #196
Hey all. Interesting discussions here. One of the more interesting threads on the board. Frankly, I would think that this thread would die rather quick. It just goes to show how wrapped up people's egos can be in their candidate. But then, I have to claim ignorance here, I don't watch TV, and I haven't bothered to Google the POTUS speech to the UN regarding this issue. Honestly, I don't give a shit.
I know that the political elites will play the masses, psychologically like toys. They will use these incidents to manipulate and pass laws that suit them. It's all bunk. Like anyone has any power over what happens anyway. We here on this site, we are the ones that care, but it takes mobilization of the masses to really stop something important. And even then, there is no guarantee any more. I don't know when the time comes, what will happen, but who knows. . . People stopped SOPA, and PIPA, but it seems clear CISPA will clear anyway, and before you know it, this whole thing will be a non-issue and the MSM will own everyone's mind once again. Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia The masses and web sites rallied against the former two because they thought entertainment and sharing were at stake. . . hell, this is just political speech, right? The corporations don't care, they have a seat at the table. The populations doesn't care, the new NFL season and AI season have started, and it's just about time to start your Christmas shopping. As long as the gladiators and the Christians are still thrown into the coliseum for all to watch, let Rome burn, right?
When it comes down to it, the Freedom of Speech is one of our most cherished and absolute rights, but it is already monopolized by corporations via TV and radio networks. So many of the in the public's minds are, really, not their own. So the very thought that any person working for the state would even hint that private individuals could not say, publish, print, video tape, make what they want in America, and that there would be people on this thread that would continue to even entertain this idea? Insanity. Sheer lunacy. It really doesn't matter which party you belong to. And frankly, if it were Romney that were in office, I could see him doing the same speech, and taking the same position. The global elites are all the same. American voters should stick together on this one, Fuck the politicians, Fuck them both. They have more allegiance to international politicians and their counterparts than they do to the American people. If they weren't so busy being the corporations and banks bitches, maybe they would stand up for the rights of the people.
The only time the "Freedom of Speech" matters to these guy is when it comes to being able to spend for unlimited amounts of money on campaign propaganda to condition the masses to give unconditional love and ego identification to the coke or pepsi criminal of their choice. In reality, to take the corruption out of the system, elections probably should be publicly funded. But that's a whole other thread, ain't it?
In keeping with the theme of the thread, I thought everyone should know, this is National Banned Book Week. Yep, that's right.
Read them!
http://www.ala.org/advocacy/banned
How many of these books are in fact banned to curtail opening minds into new avenues of political thought? I would hazard to guess at least over a third of them. Don't children deserve better? I see the results of people not having read those books that our compulsory schools don't want them to every time I spend some time on here. Only if you were in an AP class in high school, went to college and took advanced level English lit. classes, or had some initiative, have you read the books that they don't want you to read.
The really bad (good) ones? They don't even bother putting on the list or telling any one about...
Nice post, Beale!
Is it true that the only book the Left doesn't want burned is Bradbury's 'Fahrenheit 451'?
daveman
Diamond Member
So, leftists dictate that what's in everybody's best interests is voting to keep leftists in power.
Coincidence?
Not at all.
You don't give a damn about blue collar workers. You just want political power.
In summary, you don't know shit about me and my family. Very likely you've never done anything to merit the level of arrogance you display (Hint: "Being a liberal" is not an accomplishment worthy of respect, nor does it give your opinions greater weight than those of non-liberals).
What's in your best interests is the maximum amount of personal liberty conducive to polite society.
But you don't want that, do you? You want a nanny state to make all your decisions for you.
So you're just going to have to understand that no, you are not qualified to dictate what's in anyone else's best interests -- you don't even recognize what's in your own.
- Sep 16, 2012
- 66,897
- 62,678
- 3,605
Oh hell, there a loads of books I am sure the left doesn't give a shit about. A lot of books make it on there for two reasons, because they are politically inflammatory, or they are, to some, morally repugnant. The Left tends to support Secular Humanism, they want to promote this idea in the schools, they like to encourage the notion that the government is the societies new family. So there are a lot of books they really don't give a shit about. This list was the list of the most popular books, not the most recent books. You know what books continue made the top ten recently? The Potter books. They didn't make the list for being politically controversial, they made the list for promoting Satanism and Witchcraft. Do you honestly think the left wants the Potter books burned when it encourages kids to read? A more educated kid tends to make a more liberal kid you know?
I don't think you really understood the thesis of my post at all. Some of the dystopian themed views of future government novels that talk about a world socialist state, may paint conservatism in a bad light, but they also paint the extreme left in just as bad a light as well.
During the Bush administration, it was easy to imagine how we were heading toward Orwell's nightmarish vision of a world police state in 1984. However, the political elites have used local civic groups, non-profit groups, and other organizations, to try to keep kids from reading books that link us to our traditions, and books that criticize a world view of international socialism rather than national socialism. One need not look far on many lists of top banned books to find A Brave New World. In this book, we have totalitarian view of the world that conservatives fear Obama is taking us toward, test tube babies, stripping children away from their families to be raised by the state, etc.
The banning of books for political purposes is done by conservatives and liberals, Republican and Democrats alike. The only people that are not guilty of it, are those that refuse to make our Bill of Rights, and those issues that are fundamentally American, into political issues.
If you go to this site, and investigate it, you will find that that list I posted is just the list of the TOP most banned books, not the most recent. My son who is ten took a look at the most recent. He was stunned that he has read several, and shocked that our schools and society would try to ban them. The Giver? The Potter Series? The Hunger Games? He was astounded and appalled. You know who are always trying to get the Potter series banned, right?
The left is in a continual crusade to get the works of Mark Twain banned b/c of his honest portrayal of race relations. I guess they want to believe that if race relations weren't like that in the past, or if they de-emphisize his works as being classics, or de-emphisize his scathing insight into the mind of men, maybe they can no longer use race to divide and conquer?
But you haven't really understood my post. It isn't about left or right. People want to ban ideas, rather than confront them. When truth bites you on the ass, it is easier to shout epithets at people or ignore them rather than examine your own premises.
In conclusion, no, there is no such thing as the "left" or "right" when it comes to burning books. Hitler burned just as many as Stalin. The people who control the false dichotomy would seek to control your ideas either way. And still you seek to make it into a partisan issue.
PoliticalChic
Diamond Member
- Thread starter
- #199
Oh hell, there a loads of books I am sure the left doesn't give a shit about. A lot of books make it on there for two reasons, because they are politically inflammatory, or they are, to some, morally repugnant. The Left tends to support Secular Humanism, they want to promote this idea in the schools, they like to encourage the notion that the government is the societies new family. So there are a lot of books they really don't give a shit about. This list was the list of the most popular books, not the most recent books. You know what books continue made the top ten recently? The Potter books. They didn't make the list for being politically controversial, they made the list for promoting Satanism and Witchcraft. Do you honestly think the left wants the Potter books burned when it encourages kids to read? A more educated kid tends to make a more liberal kid you know?
I don't think you really understood the thesis of my post at all. Some of the dystopian themed views of future government novels that talk about a world socialist state, may paint conservatism in a bad light, but they also paint the extreme left in just as bad a light as well.
During the Bush administration, it was easy to imagine how we were heading toward Orwell's nightmarish vision of a world police state in 1984. However, the political elites have used local civic groups, non-profit groups, and other organizations, to try to keep kids from reading books that link us to our traditions, and books that criticize a world view of international socialism rather than national socialism. One need not look far on many lists of top banned books to find A Brave New World. In this book, we have totalitarian view of the world that conservatives fear Obama is taking us toward, test tube babies, stripping children away from their families to be raised by the state, etc.
The banning of books for political purposes is done by conservatives and liberals, Republican and Democrats alike. The only people that are not guilty of it, are those that refuse to make our Bill of Rights, and those issues that are fundamentally American, into political issues.
If you go to this site, and investigate it, you will find that that list I posted is just the list of the TOP most banned books, not the most recent. My son who is ten took a look at the most recent. He was stunned that he has read several, and shocked that our schools and society would try to ban them. The Giver? The Potter Series? The Hunger Games? He was astounded and appalled. You know who are always trying to get the Potter series banned, right?
The left is in a continual crusade to get the works of Mark Twain banned b/c of his honest portrayal of race relations. I guess they want to believe that if race relations weren't like that in the past, or if they de-emphisize his works as being classics, or de-emphisize his scathing insight into the mind of men, maybe they can no longer use race to divide and conquer?
But you haven't really understood my post. It isn't about left or right. People want to ban ideas, rather than confront them. When truth bites you on the ass, it is easier to shout epithets at people or ignore them rather than examine your own premises.
In conclusion, no, there is no such thing as the "left" or "right" when it comes to burning books. Hitler burned just as many as Stalin. The people who control the false dichotomy would seek to control your ideas either way. And still you seek to make it into a partisan issue.
Relax, Beale....it was a joke.
Fahrenheit 451 is about book burning.....
BTW...Hitler and Stalin were both on the Left....totalitarians.
"Liberals claim the center by placing socialism on the left and national socialism on the right, even though Lenin/Stalin and Hitler/other Nazis had much in common as they centralized power and preached hatred. A more accurate spectrum would place totalitarians of many stripes on the left and defenders of religious, political, and economic freedom on the right."
http://www.worldmag.com/articles/16873
Last edited:
- Sep 16, 2012
- 66,897
- 62,678
- 3,605
My apologies. I haven't read that one, WHOOSH, right over my head. I have only read a couple short stories and The Martian Chronicles. ------------------------
Well, there are as many ways to chart political affiliation as there are peoples politics, aren't there? No, Hitler was not on the left by many accounts, he was vehemently against state ownership of property, and State control of industries, this is what defines the "Left." It always says something about the person whose opinion should be used on which way they think we should chart political affiliation. Should we use the Nolan Chart? Or should we use the Pournelle chart? I think you knew I was just referring to the standard high school left/right dichotomy as far as communitarian/corporate-monarchic models are concerned.
There are totalitarians on the left and right, you are disingenuous if you think there aren't. Once a politician gets elected POTUS, he does everything he can to consolidate his power, and shifts it away from the other two branches of government in this country, I don't care what party he is. That makes them all authoritarian. It doesn't really matter any more for either party, both take orders from the financial elites that really run the country any how, let go of your partisan illusions. Both parties are corporatist now, that means they are ostensibly, both fascist in nature. This is the result of having so much private money dumped into the campaign, the result of the Iron Triangles in politics, and the result of revolving door politics.
Similar threads
New Topics
-
-
White Afrikaner brought to US by Trump administration has history of antisemitic posts- Started by Tommy Tainant
- Replies: 2
-
