When did 'liberals' stop believing in free speech?

[SuperDemocrat]

This is exactly what happens when 'liberals' get to decide what can be said about anything. These people are doing a radio talk show and they give advice. The shows are fun and informative but all of sudeen 'liberals' have decided they are not official experts or qualified to give advice thus they shouldn't give any at all. This would mean that anyone, your mother, your father, the guy down the street, and anyone can't speak freely about what you should be doing with your life even if you ask them.

The worst part about this is this is really born out of an attitude average people aren't qualified to have qualified opinions on anything. Only designated experts are allowed to do such things. Who are these noble people that are suppose to know what we should do with our lives? Should we at least get to choose who our expert is going to be or does the government have the only say over that as well?

The worse part is that the whole thing is rather political in nature. Most of these people are kind of 'conservative' which means some 'liberal' discovered a clever argument to silence them. The argument is that they are not qualified therefore they shouldn't be allowed to give advice because of some obscure XYZ rule.


How Fiduciary Rule May Censor Financial Broadcasters Like Dave Ramsey

 

[BULLDOG]

Ramsey makes a lot of money peddling financial advice, but financial advisers are required by law to meet standards that he doesn't meet. It works the same way with medical advice. I thought right wingers believed in obeying the law.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

When did 'liberals' stop believing in free speech?

Never, it's required...

 

[FA_Q2]

Ramsey makes a lot of money peddling financial advice, but financial advisers are required by law to meet standards that he doesn't meet. It works the same way with medical advice. I thought right wingers believed in obeying the law.

Most right wingers do. They also tend to be against asinine restrictions like not allowing anyone to give financial advice that has not been blessed by the government to do so.

There is a vast difference in what Ramsey does and what a financial adviser does. To equate the two is moronic. Not that those 'standards' really mean all that much either.

 

[JimBowie1958]

This is exactly what happens when 'liberals' get to decide what can be said about anything. These people are doing a radio talk show and they give advice. The shows are fun and informative but all of sudeen 'liberals' have decided they are not official experts or qualified to give advice thus they shouldn't give any at all. This would mean that anyone, your mother, your father, the guy down the street, and anyone can't speak freely about what you should be doing with your life even if you ask them.

The worst part about this is this is really born out of an attitude average people aren't qualified to have qualified opinions on anything. Only designated experts are allowed to do such things. Who are these noble people that are suppose to know what we should do with our lives? Should we at least get to choose who our expert is going to be or does the government have the only say over that as well?

The worse part is that the whole thing is rather political in nature. Most of these people are kind of 'conservative' which means some 'liberal' discovered a clever argument to silence them. The argument is that they are not qualified therefore they shouldn't be allowed to give advice because of some obscure XYZ rule.


How Fiduciary Rule May Censor Financial Broadcasters Like Dave Ramsey

Would you mind posting some of the relevant text?

I am not going to disable my ad blocker to go to that site.

Man, the Washington Post and now Forbes; driving away readers with boneheaded ideas for the win!

 

[Manchester]

So what this story is isn't censorship, it's man who isn't qualified to do job who may be told to stop doing job and kicking up a fuss because he wants to keep doing that job.

 

[JimBowie1958]

So what this story is isn't censorship, it's man who isn't qualified to do job who may be told to stop doing job and kicking up a fuss because he wants to keep doing that job.

Lol, 'not qualified' is the new 'verboten thought' label used by leftwing fascists to silence those they disapprove of?

How interesting.

 

[Manchester]

So what this story is isn't censorship, it's man who isn't qualified to do job who may be told to stop doing job and kicking up a fuss because he wants to keep doing that job.

Lol, 'not qualified' is the new 'verboten thought' label used by leftwing fascists to silence those they disapprove of?

How interesting.

Leftwing fascist is a contradiction in terms.

What is interesting is if someone follows this guy's advice and ends up thousands of bucks out of pocket then is he in a legally actionable position. I mean he's making money dispensing that advice without any qualification to do so. If he ruins lives then can he be held to account for that?

 

[FA_Q2]

So what this story is isn't censorship, it's man who isn't qualified to do job who may be told to stop doing job and kicking up a fuss because he wants to keep doing that job.

Which happens to be what censorship is.

Don't let that get in the way of justifying it though...

 

[JimBowie1958]

Ramsey makes a lot of money peddling financial advice, but financial advisers are required by law to meet standards that he doesn't meet. It works the same way with medical advice. I thought right wingers believed in obeying the law.

Most right wingers do. They also tend to be against asinine restrictions like not allowing anyone to give financial advice that has not been blessed by the government to do so.

There is a vast difference in what Ramsey does and what a financial adviser does. To equate the two is moronic. Not that those 'standards' really mean all that much either.

I used to listen to Ramsey quite a bit and he is excellent for giving solid personal advice on how to manage ones family budget, and that kind of thing.

If I recall correctly, he does not trust the Federal Reserves management of our nations money and advocates owning gold and getting rid of personal debt ASAP and living debt free.

IT was appropriate to me as I had let my debt build up too much and had to take drastic measures to reduce my debts, his 'Snow ball' strategy came in handy, as did my credit union helping me to consolidate my debts into a low interest personal loan.

But apparently, since I will not disable my ad blocker to read the original article, I have to guess that he is pissing off the Madoff types running our currency system.

The rest of us should diversify our holdings and not leave what little wealth we have accumulated in large nest eggs, but instead have many smaller ones of different kinds, from annuities to precious metals to cash in a locked bx under the floor boards.

But this is flying straight into the teeth of the currency control mechanisms the Western banks are busily introducing so that if we do have a deflationary event, they can force us to keep large sums in the bank, unable to withdraw them, while they start charging us interest to have our money in their bank.

For the leftwing fascists who believe in Keynesianism and strong central banks, this is incompetence and nonsense and they will use the heavy hand of government to suppress resistance, the exchange of free thought and the free flow of money to make sure we all either sink together or float together.

Pray the Saudis never go off the USD requirement to buy their oil.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Leftwing fascist is a contradiction in terms.

Why, because you say so? Please spare me your Marxist talking points, Nazi. Fascism sprang from Milan Marxism and that is an historical fact. Only ideological Marxist purists deny that because it embarrasses them, as all Truth does.

What is interesting is if someone follows this guy's advice and ends up thousands of bucks out of pocket then is he in a legally actionable position. I mean he's making money dispensing that advice without any qualification to do so. If he ruins lives then can he be held to account for that?

He is expressing his opinion and that only. IF someone takes what he thinks Ramsey meant, and then loses his money misapplying Ramsey's advice, or just loses the money because of bad events outside of his control, that is in no way Ramsey's responsibility.

What, you think Cramer should be subject to lawsuits over his 'hang in there' advice during the recent stock market collapse?

Al these professional advisers would be in jail or bankrupt if so.

 

[Manchester]

Leftwing fascist is a contradiction in terms.

Why, because you say so? Please spare me your Marxist talking points, Nazi. Fascism sprang from Milan Marxism and that is an historical fact. Only ideological Marxist purists deny that because it embarrasses them, as all Truth does.

What is interesting is if someone follows this guy's advice and ends up thousands of bucks out of pocket then is he in a legally actionable position. I mean he's making money dispensing that advice without any qualification to do so. If he ruins lives then can he be held to account for that?

He is expressing his opinion and that only. IF someone takes what he thinks Ramsey meant, and then loses his money misapplying Ramsey's advice, or just loses the money because of bad events outside of his control, that is in no way Ramsey's responsibility.

What, you think Cramer should be subject to lawsuits over his 'hang in there' advice during the recent stock market collapse?

Al these professional advisers would be in jail or bankrupt if so.

You really have no idea what any of the words you use mean do you?

 

[JimBowie1958]

You really have no idea what any of the words you use mean do you?

I know that leftwing ideologues like yourself do not define words, that is for certain.

 

[Skull Pilot]

So what this story is isn't censorship, it's man who isn't qualified to do job who may be told to stop doing job and kicking up a fuss because he wants to keep doing that job.

Lol, 'not qualified' is the new 'verboten thought' label used by leftwing fascists to silence those they disapprove of?

How interesting.

It's also funny how the state defines "qualified"

Usually it means they got a 70 on a standardized test.

Sorry but I don't think a guy who could only get a C (average) grade is qualified to give advice to anyone

 

[JimBowie1958]

So what this story is isn't censorship, it's man who isn't qualified to do job who may be told to stop doing job and kicking up a fuss because he wants to keep doing that job.

Lol, 'not qualified' is the new 'verboten thought' label used by leftwing fascists to silence those they disapprove of?

How interesting.

It's also funny how the state defines "qualified"

Usually it means they got a 70 on a standardized test.

Sorry but I don't think a guy who could only get a C (average) grade is qualified to give advice to anyone

They have to drop the standards so they can move the cattle along smoothly.

 

[rightwinger]

So what this story is isn't censorship, it's man who isn't qualified to do job who may be told to stop doing job and kicking up a fuss because he wants to keep doing that job.

Lol, 'not qualified' is the new 'verboten thought' label used by leftwing fascists to silence those they disapprove of?

How interesting.

It's also funny how the state defines "qualified"

Usually it means they got a 70 on a standardized test.

Sorry but I don't think a guy who could only get a C (average) grade is qualified to give advice to anyone

But he can still post on the Internet

 

[Skull Pilot]

So what this story is isn't censorship, it's man who isn't qualified to do job who may be told to stop doing job and kicking up a fuss because he wants to keep doing that job.

Lol, 'not qualified' is the new 'verboten thought' label used by leftwing fascists to silence those they disapprove of?

How interesting.

It's also funny how the state defines "qualified"

Usually it means they got a 70 on a standardized test.

Sorry but I don't think a guy who could only get a C (average) grade is qualified to give advice to anyone

But he can still post on the Internet

And give "advice" to people that might cost them their life's savings

If that was supposed to be some sort of dig I;ll have you know I never got a C in any subject.

When I took my licensing tests for Insurance, and securities I didn't score under 90% on any test.

I think we should let the public see the scores on licensing tests so they can really choose the best people

 

[Mac1958]

This is exactly what happens when 'liberals' get to decide what can be said about anything.

I think it started in the early days of PC. They demanded that words like "secretary" had to be changed to "receptionist", that "midget" had to be changed to "dwarf".

OK, no big deal, eyeroll, whatever.

But very quickly they saw that they could literally intimidate and change behavior with it, so they politically weaponized it and here we are.

Really, in a way, you can't blame them. It's worked fabulously for them for quite a long time. That's why they get so defensive when you expose it.

Thankfully, enough people have had enough and are saying so. We'll see.
.

 

[NYcarbineer]

This is exactly what happens when 'liberals' get to decide what can be said about anything. These people are doing a radio talk show and they give advice. The shows are fun and informative but all of sudeen 'liberals' have decided they are not official experts or qualified to give advice thus they shouldn't give any at all. This would mean that anyone, your mother, your father, the guy down the street, and anyone can't speak freely about what you should be doing with your life even if you ask them.

The worst part about this is this is really born out of an attitude average people aren't qualified to have qualified opinions on anything. Only designated experts are allowed to do such things. Who are these noble people that are suppose to know what we should do with our lives? Should we at least get to choose who our expert is going to be or does the government have the only say over that as well?

The worse part is that the whole thing is rather political in nature. Most of these people are kind of 'conservative' which means some 'liberal' discovered a clever argument to silence them. The argument is that they are not qualified therefore they shouldn't be allowed to give advice because of some obscure XYZ rule.


How Fiduciary Rule May Censor Financial Broadcasters Like Dave Ramsey

We didn't. Shut up.

 

[JimBowie1958]

We didn't. Shut up.

You did and still are.