When did 'liberals' stop believing in free speech?

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

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.

How did you determine he's not qualified?

I don't. The law will, it's why he's kicking up a fuss. Keep up at the back.

So only the government can determine qualifications? The market can't do that?

For legislative purposes? Yes exclusively. You can't have business deciding what is legally necessary for business any more than you can have the wolves deciding how high the fence to the chicken coup should be.

What qualifies the government to be the only arbiter?

 

[jon_berzerk]

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

When did 'liberals' stop believing in free speech?

whenever free speech is not leftard talking points

 

[Deleted member 53821]

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.

How did you determine he's not qualified?

I don't. The law will, it's why he's kicking up a fuss. Keep up at the back.

So only the government can determine qualifications? The market can't do that?

For legislative purposes? Yes exclusively. You can't have business deciding what is legally necessary for business any more than you can have the wolves deciding how high the fence to the chicken coup should be.

What qualifies the government to be the only arbiter?

It is the fact that government itself is so honest and qualified on everything in life. We should get a license to give financial advice because the government has done such a good job with the deficit and its debt that it should decide who can give advice to other people. I'm not being sarcastic her but it is damn scary that people can't see how qualified government is as handling its own financial business. The next thing is honesty. The government should determine who is honest with and who is not honest. We need to license everyone who honest advice. if you are not honest then just give false advice (aka lie) so you wouldn't come into any violations with the honesty regulations. In fact, we should require a license for every fuckin legal thing we want to do that way the government can keep tabs on every aspect of our lives. Should we have license for *******? We know the government is best qualified to **** because it happens to **** me over every year on april 15th. We should get license to **** everyone else over as well.

How about them apples?

 

[Deleted member 53821]

Am I the only to notice that these talk show host happen to be somewhat conservative? Could there be something else to this like a way to begin to regulate other conservative talk show host? I'm really kind of suspicious of this.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

How did you determine he's not qualified?

I don't. The law will, it's why he's kicking up a fuss. Keep up at the back.

So only the government can determine qualifications? The market can't do that?

For legislative purposes? Yes exclusively. You can't have business deciding what is legally necessary for business any more than you can have the wolves deciding how high the fence to the chicken coup should be.

The consumers decide. Government horns in only so it can benefit some special interest, like the existing businesses that lobbied the government to impose licensing requirements.

 

[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.

In other words, if my mother gives me health food advice she should first get registered with the federal government. I'm sure you are going to point out the fact that my mother is not making money off of it. That is true but it doesn't help you because advice columns in newspapers often give advice of all kinds such as psychological, social, finacial, etc, etc. Should Dear Abby type of advice columns have to be registered with the government before they can officially give advice to others?

If dear Abby type advice columns start charging the letter writers for an answer, yes.

 

[LeftofLeft]

Liberals never did believe in Free Speech. They believe in their Speech. When they are not being heard or capturing concurring minds, Liberals start crying about their Free Speech being compromised followed up by taunts and charges of "hate" and/or "racism".

Simply remind our friends on the Left that Free Speech does not equate to A Mandate to Be Heard.

 

[Deleted member 53821]

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.

In other words, if my mother gives me health food advice she should first get registered with the federal government. I'm sure you are going to point out the fact that my mother is not making money off of it. That is true but it doesn't help you because advice columns in newspapers often give advice of all kinds such as psychological, social, finacial, etc, etc. Should Dear Abby type of advice columns have to be registered with the government before they can officially give advice to others?

If dear Abby type advice columns start charging the letter writers for an answer, yes.

Really Dude?

 

[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.

How did you determine he's not qualified?

I don't. The law will, it's why he's kicking up a fuss. Keep up at the back.

So only the government can determine qualifications? The market can't do that?

For legislative purposes? Yes exclusively. You can't have business deciding what is legally necessary for business any more than you can have the wolves deciding how high the fence to the chicken coup should be.

What qualifies the government to be the only arbiter?

It's of the people, by the people and for the people. As opposed to business that operates with the sole goal of profit.

 

[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

not sure what degree or state certificate you are talking about but I can tell you that in order to become even a social worker in the state of Maryland you have to carry at minimum a 3.0 average ( B ) in all of the classes you take. If you get a 4.0 in every class but one, and that one class is less than a 3.0, you have to retake it before you can get certified.

Any so called professional licence exam required by the several states I held licenses in insurance and securities only required a 70 to pass
The same goes for contractors, electricians plumbers whatever

Program Requirements - UM School of Social Work - University of Maryland, Baltimore
the fields you mentioned are not exactly critical or for the intellectual. Have you ever seen the workers? they can even keep their butt cracks from hanging out.

And social work is for the "intellectual"

What are you smoking?

 

[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

not sure what degree or state certificate you are talking about but I can tell you that in order to become even a social worker in the state of Maryland you have to carry at minimum a 3.0 average ( B ) in all of the classes you take. If you get a 4.0 in every class but one, and that one class is less than a 3.0, you have to retake it before you can get certified.

Any so called professional licence exam required by the several states I held licenses in insurance and securities only required a 70 to pass
The same goes for contractors, electricians plumbers whatever

The more relevant question is weather or not you think that those tests were indicative of your ability to preform in that field.

I don't really think there is a difference if you scored 70% or 100% - most of those tests do nothing but gauge how well you memorized some material that has nothing to do with your actual job requirements.

So if the guy got the question wrong on the securities exam about some legal and very important aspect of fiduciary responsibility it's OK to say he's fit to handle other peoples' money?

How about the guy who got the question on load limits for circuits wrong on the electricians' exam? Do you want him wiring your house?

 

[regent]

I guess the first time free speech was declared unlawful was back in 1798 when the conservative Federalist party passed the free speech act, and It became illegal to criticize the president or others in the Federalist government. People were arrested and when Jefferson became president most of the sedition laws were dropped. It may have been a major factor in killing off the first conservative party the Federalists.

The Federalists were the pro-government party. The modern equivalent would be the Democrat party, not the Republican party.

The name of a political party may have some correlation with a political philosophy and it may not. Liberal and conservative are better labels of an ideology. For example after the Civil War, southern Conservatives joined the Democratic party, not because of the liberal ideology but because it was the Republican party that freed the slaves.
In 1798 the party of Adams, and Hamilton were considered conservative and the party of Jefferson and Madison, liberal. In fact, the Democratic party of today trace their heritage back to Jefferson. And it sounds like the conservatives of today trace their heritage back, not to Lincoln, but to Reagan.
High school students often have trouble with the political party names of that early period, Republicans which in those early days were the liberal party.
In any case, many historians believe, it was the Alien and Sedition Acts that spelled the end of the first conservative party, the Federalists.

The Federalists were not the "conservative" party. They were the big government party - liberal, in other words. Modern liberals have nothing in common with Jefferson and Madison. They often go out of their way to pain Jefferson as a racist homophobic sexist white male.

The size of government is not part of a political ideology it is a means to achieve the goals of a political ideology. Which party the Federalists or Antifederalists insisted on a Bill of Rights before they would ratify the Constitution?

 

[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.

How did you determine he's not qualified?

I don't. The law will, it's why he's kicking up a fuss. Keep up at the back.

So only the government can determine qualifications? The market can't do that?

For legislative purposes? Yes exclusively. You can't have business deciding what is legally necessary for business any more than you can have the wolves deciding how high the fence to the chicken coup should be.

What qualifies the government to be the only arbiter?

Damn, dude, you're on a roll!

 

[bripat9643]

How did you determine he's not qualified?

I don't. The law will, it's why he's kicking up a fuss. Keep up at the back.

So only the government can determine qualifications? The market can't do that?

For legislative purposes? Yes exclusively. You can't have business deciding what is legally necessary for business any more than you can have the wolves deciding how high the fence to the chicken coup should be.

What qualifies the government to be the only arbiter?

It's of the people, by the people and for the people. As opposed to business that operates with the sole goal of profit.

That's liberal theory. Unfortunately it's complete bullshit. People understand intrinsically that government is a gang of men separate from themselves whose intentions are largely predatory.

 

[bripat9643]

I guess the first time free speech was declared unlawful was back in 1798 when the conservative Federalist party passed the free speech act, and It became illegal to criticize the president or others in the Federalist government. People were arrested and when Jefferson became president most of the sedition laws were dropped. It may have been a major factor in killing off the first conservative party the Federalists.

The Federalists were the pro-government party. The modern equivalent would be the Democrat party, not the Republican party.

The name of a political party may have some correlation with a political philosophy and it may not. Liberal and conservative are better labels of an ideology. For example after the Civil War, southern Conservatives joined the Democratic party, not because of the liberal ideology but because it was the Republican party that freed the slaves.
In 1798 the party of Adams, and Hamilton were considered conservative and the party of Jefferson and Madison, liberal. In fact, the Democratic party of today trace their heritage back to Jefferson. And it sounds like the conservatives of today trace their heritage back, not to Lincoln, but to Reagan.
High school students often have trouble with the political party names of that early period, Republicans which in those early days were the liberal party.
In any case, many historians believe, it was the Alien and Sedition Acts that spelled the end of the first conservative party, the Federalists.

The Federalists were not the "conservative" party. They were the big government party - liberal, in other words. Modern liberals have nothing in common with Jefferson and Madison. They often go out of their way to pain Jefferson as a racist homophobic sexist white male.

The size of government is not part of a political ideology it is a means to achieve the goals of a political ideology.

If your goal is freedom, then the desired size of government is "as small as possible." therefor, government is part of political ideology.

Which party the Federalists or Antifederalists insisted on a Bill of Rights before they would ratify the Constitution?

The anti Federalists were the ones who insisted on a Bill of Rights before they would ratify the Constitution.

 

[regent]

I guess the first time free speech was declared unlawful was back in 1798 when the conservative Federalist party passed the free speech act, and It became illegal to criticize the president or others in the Federalist government. People were arrested and when Jefferson became president most of the sedition laws were dropped. It may have been a major factor in killing off the first conservative party the Federalists.

The Federalists were the pro-government party. The modern equivalent would be the Democrat party, not the Republican party.

The name of a political party may have some correlation with a political philosophy and it may not. Liberal and conservative are better labels of an ideology. For example after the Civil War, southern Conservatives joined the Democratic party, not because of the liberal ideology but because it was the Republican party that freed the slaves.
In 1798 the party of Adams, and Hamilton were considered conservative and the party of Jefferson and Madison, liberal. In fact, the Democratic party of today trace their heritage back to Jefferson. And it sounds like the conservatives of today trace their heritage back, not to Lincoln, but to Reagan.
High school students often have trouble with the political party names of that early period, Republicans which in those early days were the liberal party.
In any case, many historians believe, it was the Alien and Sedition Acts that spelled the end of the first conservative party, the Federalists.

The Federalists were not the "conservative" party. They were the big government party - liberal, in other words. Modern liberals have nothing in common with Jefferson and Madison. They often go out of their way to pain Jefferson as a racist homophobic sexist white male.

The size of government is not part of a political ideology it is a means to achieve the goals of a political ideology.

If your goal is freedom, then the desired size of government is "as small as possible." therefor, government is part of political ideology.

Which party the Federalists or Antifederalists insisted on a Bill of Rights before they would ratify the Constitution?

The anti Federalists were the ones who insisted on a Bill of Rights before they would ratify the Constitution.

And are the Anti Federalists considered to be liberal or conservative?
At one time liberals did deem government as evil but then as liberals became the government they deemed governments less and less evil. Today, American liberals, see government as a benefit to we the people, just as at one time the Noble class saw government as a benefit to nobles.

 

[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.

I'm libertarian. We believe the government has no business deciding who is qualified and who isn't.

And just as soon as libertarians start making the laws, you can put a stop to all that, but as long as you are such a small minority, I guess you need to suck it up and quit whining.

Interesting that you purport to not be against free speech and yet here you are telling him that he needs to shut up...

No, libertarians, communists, totalitarians, anarchists and everyone in between does not need to 'stop whining.' They need to continue whining because that is where change starts - with using your speech to spread the ideas you think are best for the nation.

You don't understand what free speech is. I am allowed to use my free speech to say STFU.

I understand perfectly well what free speech is. I also never said that you didn't have the right to say such. Apparently you need to make shit up to justify things you have said.

You also might want to look into irony - you do not seem to understand it.

 

[bripat9643]

The Federalists were the pro-government party. The modern equivalent would be the Democrat party, not the Republican party.

The name of a political party may have some correlation with a political philosophy and it may not. Liberal and conservative are better labels of an ideology. For example after the Civil War, southern Conservatives joined the Democratic party, not because of the liberal ideology but because it was the Republican party that freed the slaves.
In 1798 the party of Adams, and Hamilton were considered conservative and the party of Jefferson and Madison, liberal. In fact, the Democratic party of today trace their heritage back to Jefferson. And it sounds like the conservatives of today trace their heritage back, not to Lincoln, but to Reagan.
High school students often have trouble with the political party names of that early period, Republicans which in those early days were the liberal party.
In any case, many historians believe, it was the Alien and Sedition Acts that spelled the end of the first conservative party, the Federalists.

The Federalists were not the "conservative" party. They were the big government party - liberal, in other words. Modern liberals have nothing in common with Jefferson and Madison. They often go out of their way to pain Jefferson as a racist homophobic sexist white male.

The size of government is not part of a political ideology it is a means to achieve the goals of a political ideology.

If your goal is freedom, then the desired size of government is "as small as possible." therefor, government is part of political ideology.

Which party the Federalists or Antifederalists insisted on a Bill of Rights before they would ratify the Constitution?

The anti Federalists were the ones who insisted on a Bill of Rights before they would ratify the Constitution.

And are the Anti Federalists considered to be liberal or conservative?
At one time liberals did deem government as evil but then as liberals became the government they deemed governments less and less evil. Today, American liberals, see government as a benefit to we the people, just as at one time the Noble class saw government as a benefit to nobles.

You're describing the process by which liberals turned into fascists. Government has never been a benefit to "we the people," and it never will.

 

[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.

How did you determine he's not qualified?

I don't. The law will, it's why he's kicking up a fuss. Keep up at the back.

So only the government can determine qualifications? The market can't do that?

For legislative purposes? Yes exclusively. You can't have business deciding what is legally necessary for business any more than you can have the wolves deciding how high the fence to the chicken coup should be.

Nor is the government able to tell them how high the fence needs to be - they do not get eaten when they are wrong.

The ones that are actually qualified for that task is the chickens themselves - they have a vested interest in it. We call that the market...

 

[FA_Q2]

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

not sure what degree or state certificate you are talking about but I can tell you that in order to become even a social worker in the state of Maryland you have to carry at minimum a 3.0 average ( B ) in all of the classes you take. If you get a 4.0 in every class but one, and that one class is less than a 3.0, you have to retake it before you can get certified.

Any so called professional licence exam required by the several states I held licenses in insurance and securities only required a 70 to pass
The same goes for contractors, electricians plumbers whatever

The more relevant question is weather or not you think that those tests were indicative of your ability to preform in that field.

I don't really think there is a difference if you scored 70% or 100% - most of those tests do nothing but gauge how well you memorized some material that has nothing to do with your actual job requirements.

So if the guy got the question wrong on the securities exam about some legal and very important aspect of fiduciary responsibility it's OK to say he's fit to handle other peoples' money?

How about the guy who got the question on load limits for circuits wrong on the electricians' exam? Do you want him wiring your house?

Depends to be honest.

Does he have extensive experience, good references and consistent quality work? Or do you think that answering the correct multiple choice on the load limit actually means something?