# End The First Amendment???



## PoliticalChic (Sep 26, 2012)

When this way-Left President, with inordinate sensitivities when it comes to Islam, suggests he will be more 'flexible' after his re-election.....

....the following is exactly what he means.

1. "The World Doesnt Love the First Amendment

2. The vile anti-Muslim video shows that the U.S. overvalues free speech.



3. In a world linked by YouTube, Twitter, and Facebook, countless videos attacking peoples religions, produced by provocateurs, rabble-rousers, and lunatics, will spread to every corner of the world, as fast as the Internet can blast them, and beyond the power of governments to stop them.

4. But there is another possible response. This is that* Americans need to learn that the rest of the worldand not just Muslimssee no sense in the First Amendment. *Even other Western nations take a more circumspect position on freedom of expression than we do, realizing that often free speech must yield to other values and the need for order. 





5. The First Amendment earned its sacred status only in the 1960s, and then only among liberals and the left, who cheered when the courts ruled that government could not suppress the speech of dissenters, critics, scandalous artistic types, and even pornographers.

6. ...conservatives have invoked the First Amendment to oppose efforts to make everyone, in universities and elsewhere, speak civilly about women and minorities. Im talking of course about the political correctness movement beginning in the 1980s, which often merged into attempts to enforce a leftist position on race relations and gender politics. 




7.  For the left, the amendment today is like a dear old uncle who enacted heroic deeds in his youth but on occasion says embarrassing things about taboo subjects in his decline.

8. We have to remember that *our First Amendment values are not universal...*

9. *Americans have not always been so paralyzed by constitutional symbolism.* 

10.  Try explaining that to the protesters in Cairo or Islamabad."
The vile anti-Muslim video and the First Amendment: Does the U.S. overvalue free speech? - Slate Magazine


Read between the lines......

....Slate magazine.....

....the Left has decided it's time to end free speech....
.... coincidentally, the White House wants to control the internet. 


Are you Liberals ready to go along with that?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Sep 26, 2012)

Your kind of reasoning is exactly the type of "campaigning" that is driving Romney's chances into the gutter.

Only the wacky 5% on the right buy your rant.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Sep 26, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> Your kind of reasoning is exactly the type of "campaigning" that is driving Romney's chances into the gutter.
> 
> Only the wacky 5% on the right buy your rant.



You go out of your way to prove what a fool you are, Jakey.

This is not about the election....
...this is about the end of America.




Fools like you poo-poo these suggestions, and we wind up with a President who ignores the Constitution.


...or did you miss that as well?




"Only the wacky 5% on the right buy your rant."

Every word from 1-10 is from Slate magazine....not one of those words is mine, imbecile.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings (Sep 26, 2012)

Related:

*Muslim Leaders Make Case for Global Blasphemy Ban at U.N.
By Patrick Goodenough
September 26, 2012
CNNNews.com*

Muslim Leaders Make Case for Global Blasphemy Ban at U.N. | CNSNews.com


----------



## there4eyeM (Sep 26, 2012)

The attacks on individual freedoms in general and free speech in particular are bi-partisan as far as Republican and Democratic parties go.

What constitutes 'liberal' in America (the word the opposite meaning in Europe) is a set of ideas and ideals that include more government action in society. Conservatives seek to have the minimum of such involvement. The two camps do not necessarily correspond to the two above parties. There is no inherent reason either side should attack the First Amendment.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Sep 26, 2012)

there4eyeM said:


> The attacks on individual freedoms in general and free speech in particular are bi-partisan as far as Republican and Democratic parties go.
> 
> What constitutes 'liberal' in America (the word the opposite meaning in Europe) is a set of ideas and ideals that include more government action in society. Conservatives seek to have the minimum of such involvement. The two camps do not necessarily correspond to the two above parties. There is no inherent reason either side should attack the First Amendment.



You really need a tutorial on the issues....

...and here I am, to provide same:

1. Free Press was founded by Robert McChesney, and on his board sat Marxist Van Jones, former Green Jobs Czar for Obama.

2.	Insight into Free Press, and the Center for American Progress can be seen in The Structural Imbalance of Political Talk Radio, co-authored by Mark Lloyd. The following from their policy report: http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2007/06/pdf/talk_radio.pdf

a.	more than 90 percent of Americans ages 12 or older listen to radio each week, a higher penetration than television, magazines, newspapers, or the Internet. Americans listened on average to 19 hours of radio per week in 2006conservative talk radio undeniably dominates the format91 percent of the total weekday talk radio programming is conservative, and 9 percent is progressive

b.	The two most frequently cited reasons are the repeal of the Fairness Doctrine in 1987 and simple consumer demand.Ownership diversity is perhaps the single most important variable contributing to the structural imbalance based on the data.



2. Phil Kerpen, of the conservative think tank, Americans for Prosperity, blasted *the FCC for being in bed with Free Press:* AFP was reacting to an email sent out under FCC *Spokeswoman Jen Howards name by Free Press discussing FCCs intent to advance net neutrality regulations. Free Press is a well-known advocate of government intervention in the Internet *and Howards attempt to have one foot in and one foot out of government at the same time is outrageous.

*Free Press was founded by left-wing extremists* who want to destroy private ownership of the media and the Internet. It was bad enough that the *Federal Communications Commission hired Free Presss former spokesperson, Jen Howard.* Now we see that she is still apparently working for Free Press, said AFP Policy Director Phil Kerpen. Now that Howard is running the press office for FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski it is shocking that she would still be a soldier for *a left-wing advocacy group.*


Free Press is the brainchild of *Robert McChesney *who wrote a column last year *advising President Obama: In the end, there is no real answer but to remove brick-by-brick the capitalist system itself, rebuilding the entire society on socialist principles.*
The FCC has put on a false front that it is honestly interested in the publics feedback on its efforts to regulate the Internet, said Kerpen. Todays revelation that it is sharing employees with a group that is dedicated to destroying our free market system is unacceptable.    FCC Official Spokeswoman Still Working for &#8216;Free Press&#8217; &#8211; Common American Journal



3.	Robert McChesney, former editor of Monthly Review, *a leading Marxist publication*, has dangerously *close ties to the Obama administration, * McChesney created the media reform organization Free Press, and served on the board of Norman Solomons Institute for Public Accuracy. He remains on the board of Monthly Review, which has a half-century history of *supporting Communist movements* and regimes. Echoing President Obamas media diversity czar Mark Lloyd, *McChesney supports Venezuelas Marxist strongman Hugo Chavez and that countrys crackdown on the media. *He even argued that owners of an opposition TV station that had been critical of Chavez should be arrested for treason. 


4.	"Ive spent a lot of time here deconstructing and criticizing the proposals set forth by the Free Press, the radical media reformista group founded by the prolific Marxist media theorist Robert McChesney. I have been trying to shine more light on their proposals and activities because I believe they are *antithetical to freedom of speech and a free society.* Thats because, as media scholar Ben Compaine has noted, What the hard core reformistas really want, it seems, is not diversity or an open debate but a media that promotes their own vision of society and the world. Thats exactly right and, more specifically, as I argued in my 2005 Media Myths book, the media reformistas want to *impose this control by taking the fantasy that the public owns the [broadcast] airwaves *and extending it to ALL media platforms and outlets. In other words, McChesney and the Free Press want an UnFree Press. To cast things in *neo-Marxist terms that they could appreciate, they want to take control of the information means of production. *And it begins, McChesney argues, by all of us having to give up this *sort of religious attachment to the idea of a free-press from which we all suffer."* 
Free Press, Robert McChesney & the &#8220;Struggle&#8221; for Media


Marxist,Left-wing, Progressive, Democrat.....all the same.


----------



## MisterBeale (Sep 26, 2012)

You know, I read this article you posted, it read like an early Halloween creep story.  I can't believe any Republican or Democrat would agree with the conflating of mistakes of the past to weakening of constitutional protections of today; using past episodes in America's history as illustrative examples as to why we should bend to global opinion and weaken our cultural and national legal foundations for the good of the globalists new world order goals.

One need only peruse the comments of this article to see how the majority of Americans find this Globalist's propaganda critically in error and subversive to our culture.  But don't look for it to end.  They continually will use events such as these, and more to be planned, and taught in our schools to change opinion about the absolute necessity of the sovereign individual to be able to say what one thinks in one's heart to be silenced.  If we can agree that this is wrong, then let us also agree that political correctness has gone to far as well.  But we can all imagine Mr. Obama joking around with his wife or even Colin Powell, using the word ******, and no one really giving a shit.  But what if Romney bandied up with the same term with Obama behind the scenes at the debates?  Well then, I think there would be a national up roar, wouldn't there?  Linguistic hypocrisy and the end to sovereign freedom.  Back in high school we learned about a thing called thought crime.  Call a spade a spade.  Never thought I would see the day where one would be guilty of such a thing.

That's b/c the whole issue is politicized.  Political Correctness _is_ *Newspeak.
*
Newspeak - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


> Newspeak is a fictional language in George Orwell's novel Nineteen Eighty-Four. In the novel, it refers to the deliberately impoverished language promoted by the state. Orwell explained the basic principles of the language in an essay included as an appendix to the novel.[1] Newspeak is closely based on English but has a greatly reduced and simplified vocabulary and grammar. The totalitarian aim of the Party is to prevent any alternative thinking  "thoughtcrime", or "crimethink" in the newest edition of Newspeak  by destroying any vocabulary that expresses such concepts as freedom, free enquiry, individualism, resistance to the authority of the state and so on. One character, Syme, says admiringly of the diminishing scope of the new language: "It's a beautiful thing, the destruction of words."
> 
> The Newspeak term for the English language is Oldspeak. The Party intends to replace Oldspeak completely with Newspeak before 2050 (except among the Proles, who are not trained in Newspeak and whom the Party regards as barely human).
> 
> ...



Principles of Newspeak


----------



## daveman (Sep 26, 2012)

Obama's claim of being a Constitutional scholar strains credibility.

Maybe someday he'll read the document he swore to protect and defend.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Sep 26, 2012)

No one cares where the words come from.

They are stupid.  America is not at an end, not anywhere near an end, not in danger from having a black man as president for a second term.

Let the wacky far right in charge again, however, and the country will crumble.

Do you really think Romney will put up with your libertarian bullshit any more than Obama?

You guys are not going to ever a chance of governing again.



PoliticalChic said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Your kind of reasoning is exactly the type of "campaigning" that is driving Romney's chances into the gutter.
> ...


----------



## daveman (Sep 26, 2012)

> 4. But there is another possible response. This is that Americans need to learn that the rest of the world&#8212;and not just Muslims&#8212;see no sense in the First Amendment. Even other Western nations take a more circumspect position on freedom of expression than we do, realizing that often free speech must yield to other values and the need for order.


I'll say this while I still can:

Eat shit, Slate.  The rest of the world doesn't get a say in our internal affairs.  Moron.


----------



## del (Sep 26, 2012)

^

gaggle of morons


----------



## JakeStarkey (Sep 26, 2012)

Stop it, morons.  The first amendment is in no danger from us, the rest of the world, or the wacky right.  Who cares what the UN says?


----------



## PoliticalChic (Sep 26, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> No one cares where the words come from.
> 
> They are stupid.  America is not at an end, not anywhere near an end, not in danger from having a black man as president for a second term.
> 
> ...



Step off, jerk.


----------



## del (Sep 26, 2012)

PoliticalChic said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > No one cares where the words come from.
> ...



eat shit and bark at the moon, fuckwit


----------



## JakeStarkey (Sep 26, 2012)

Nope, we are not stepping off.  We stepped on the faces of the far right and the libertarian wings and ground them into the ground.  The mainstream GOP and the rest of sane America will never take its foot off your collective neck.

Your time passed and will never return.



PoliticalChic said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > No one cares where the words come from.
> ...


----------



## PoliticalChic (Sep 26, 2012)

MisterBeale said:


> You know, I read this article you posted, it read like an early Halloween creep story.  I can't believe any Republican or Democrat would agree with the conflating of mistakes of the past to weakening of constitutional protections of today; using past episodes in America's history as illustrative examples as to why we should bend to global opinion and weaken our cultural and national legal foundations for the good of the globalists new world order goals.
> 
> One need only peruse the comments of this article to see how the majority of Americans find this Globalist's propaganda critically in error and subversive to our culture.  But don't look for it to end.  They continually will use events such as these, and more to be planned, and taught in our schools to change opinion about the absolute necessity of the sovereign individual to be able to say what one thinks in one's heart to be silenced.  If we can agree that this is wrong, then let us also agree that political correctness has gone to far as well.  But we can all imagine Mr. Obama joking around with his wife or even Colin Powell, using the word ******, and no one really giving a shit.  But what if Romney bandied up with the same term with Obama behind the scenes at the debates?  Well then, I think there would be a national up roar, wouldn't there?  Linguistic hypocrisy and the end to sovereign freedom.  Back in high school we learned about a thing called thought crime.  Call a spade a spade.  Never thought I would see the day where one would be guilty of such a thing.
> 
> ...



If I neglected to do so, let me welcome you to the board.


Now...as far as "weakening of constitutional protections "....we have none. The Constitution was obviated by his Eminence, FDR the 1st.


Theodore Lowi wrote about it in "The End of Liberalism," wherein he posited that we no longer live in a nation ruled by the Constitution, and, instead have an unwritten one....

He sketched it as follows:

 PREAMBLE. There ought to be a national presence in every aspect of the lives of American citizens. National power is no longer a necessary evil; it is a positive virtue.

Article I. It is the primary purpose of this national government to provide domestic tranquility by reducing risk. This risk may be physical or it may be fiscal. In order to fulfill this sacred obligation, the national government shall be deemed to have sufficient power to eliminate threats from the environment through regulation, and to eliminate threats from economic uncertainty through insurance.

Article II. The separation of powers to the contrary notwithstanding, the center of this national government is the presidency. Said office is authorized to use any powers, real or imagined, to set our nation to rights making any rules or regulations the president deems appropriate; the president may delegate this authority to any other official or agency. The right to make all such rules and regulations is based on the assumption in this constitution that the office of the presidency embodies the will of the real majority of the American nation.

Article III. Congress exists, but only as a consensual body. Congress possesses all legislative authority but should limit itself to the delegation of broad grants of unstructured authority to the president. Congress must take care never to draft a careful and precise statute because this would interfere with the judgment of the president and his professional and full time administrators.

Article IV. There exists a separate administrative branch composed of persons whose right to govern is based on two principles: (1), the delegations of power flowing from Congress; and (2), the authority inherent in professional training and promotion through an administrative hierarchy. Congress and the courts may provide for administrative procedures and have the power to review agencies for their observance of these procedures; but in no instance should Congress or the courts attempt to displace the judgment of the administrators with their own.

Article V. The Judicial branch is responsible for two functions: (1), to preserve the procedural rights of citizens before all federal courts, state and local courts, and administrative agencies; and (2), to apply the Fourteenth Amendment of the 1787 Constitution as a natural-law defense of all substantive and procedural rights. The appellate courts shall exercise vigorous judicial review of all state and local government and court decisions, but in no instance shall the courts review the constitutionality of Congresss grants of authority to the president or to the federal administrative agencies.

Article VI. The public interest shall be defined by the satisfaction of the voters in their constituencies. The test of public interest is reelection.

Article VII. The public interest to the contrary notwithstanding, actual policy making will not come from voter preferences or congressional enactments but form a process of tripartite bargaining between specialized administrators, relevant members of Congress, and the representatives of self-selected organized interests. Principalities And Powers: Goodbye Liberalism: Hello Socialism



"the center of this national government is the presidency. Said office is authorized to use any powers, real or imagined, to set our nation to rights making any rules or regulations the president deems appropriate;"

...this would include the power to make it illegal to 'defame' any religion....


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Sep 26, 2012)

PoliticalChic said:


> When this way-Left President, with inordinate sensitivities when it comes to Islam, suggests he will be more 'flexible' after his re-election.....
> 
> ....the following is exactly what he means.
> 
> ...



Did you bother to read  and comprehend  the actual article before butchering it like the partisan hack you are? 

The author in no way advocates ending the First Amendment, and neither do liberals.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Sep 26, 2012)

Political Chic is not interested in fairness or objectivity in discussion.

She is a political ethug who wishes to end free speech on the Board through misrepresentation and intimidation.

She forgot that we just laugh at her when she starts this nonsense.


----------



## daveman (Sep 26, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> Stop it, morons.  The first amendment is in no danger from us, the rest of the world, or the wacky right.  Who cares what the UN says?


Your little tin god Obama.


----------



## daveman (Sep 26, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> Political Chic is not interested in fairness or objectivity in discussion.
> 
> She is a political ethug who wishes to end free speech on the Board through misrepresentation and intimidation.
> 
> She forgot that we just laugh at her when she starts this nonsense.


"We" being, of course, Fakey and his fellow leftists.


----------



## del (Sep 26, 2012)

daveman said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Political Chic is not interested in fairness or objectivity in discussion.
> ...



no, pretty much everyone laughs at her

and you

am i laughing?


----------



## Sallow (Sep 26, 2012)

Obviously PC..you were making chocolate chip cookies when Obama was speaking to the UN on the topic..or you'd know that he vehmently defended the first amendment.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Sep 26, 2012)

Sallow said:


> Obviously PC..you were making chocolate chip cookies when Obama was speaking to the UN on the topic..or you'd know that he vehmently defended the first amendment.



or stuffing the cookie dough in her ears.


----------



## daveman (Sep 26, 2012)

del said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...


Dunno.  Are you looking in a mirror?


----------



## del (Sep 26, 2012)

daveman said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



good one, dave.

are you and political chunk sharing a writer?


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Sep 26, 2012)

What an idiotic premise.


----------



## whitehall (Sep 26, 2012)

The radical left sees the Constitution written in a lump of clay rather than etched in stone. The funny thing is that generations of kids have been taught that the 1st Amendment only applies to the rabble who burn the Flag in the streets and shit on the Virgin Mary. They are shocked that the Bill of Rights also applies to Americans who call them dumb asses. The ironically named "fairness doctrine" aka "hush Rush" bill is intended to silence opposition speech.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Sep 27, 2012)

Our little board loons keep on daving.



daveman said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Political Chic is not interested in fairness or objectivity in discussion.
> ...


----------



## idb (Sep 27, 2012)

daveman said:


> Obama's claim of being a Constitutional scholar strains credibility.
> 
> Maybe someday he'll read the document he swore to protect and defend.



Quite right.
When, oh when, are the Supreme Court going to pull him into line?


----------



## PoliticalChic (Sep 27, 2012)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > When this way-Left President, with inordinate sensitivities when it comes to Islam, suggests he will be more 'flexible' after his re-election.....
> ...



Of course I read it, torte-boy...

...but only one of us understood it.

Hint:you weren't the one who did so.


Bet you didn't understand Marc Antony's speech, either.

Friends, Romans, countrymen, lend me your ears;
*I come to bury Caesar, not to praise him.*



Really think the Libs want to 'bury' the idea of restricting free speech?
Read between the lines....the ones that I provided for you!

The same way Liberals/Progressives wanted to end *the Fairness Doctrine.*

Dim-Wit.

You and Jakey are the reasons the Left gets anti-American ideas into the culture.
You are the Fifth Column.

Lock-Step Liberals will be the death of America.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Sep 27, 2012)

Sallow said:


> Obviously PC..you were making chocolate chip cookies when Obama was speaking to the UN on the topic..or you'd know that he vehmently defended the first amendment.



They don't come any more stupid than you.

That's why the liar-in-chief is still suggesting censorship and blaming the a video for the damage caused by his policies.

And you buy it like it was on sale.



No chocolate chip cookies for you.


----------



## idb (Sep 27, 2012)

PoliticalChic said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



But, have you forgotten Richard The Third's famous speech?


----------



## PoliticalChic (Sep 27, 2012)

idb said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > C_Clayton_Jones said:
> ...



Willie didn't forget you, BVD's...

"Thou errant scurvy-valiant blind-worm!"


----------



## idb (Sep 27, 2012)

PoliticalChic said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



I was actually thinking of "A horse, a horse...", but yours is equally pointless to the thread.


----------



## High_Gravity (Sep 27, 2012)

In Islamic countries free speach is an alien concept, it just doesn't exist. You are not free to say what you want in those countries, talking bad about a countries leader or dictator would get you picked up by the secret police, nevermind if you talked bad about Islam. Just the idea that someone would mock Islam and talk bad about it is just not fathomable to them and of course they want to end it.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Sep 27, 2012)

High_Gravity said:


> In Islamic countries free speach is an alien concept, it just doesn't exist. You are not free to say what you want in those countries, talking bad about a countries leader or dictator would get you picked up by the secret police, nevermind if you talked bad about Islam. Just the idea that someone would mock Islam and talk bad about it is just not fathomable to them and of course they want to end it.



Islamic countries???


Check this out in NYC yesterday....


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ABfcjn_npb8&feature=player_embedded]Spray Paint Jihaad! - Arrest New York Subway - 25 Sep 2012 - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## PoliticalChic (Sep 27, 2012)

idb said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > idb said:
> ...



Pointless?


Shoe fit, B's?


----------



## High_Gravity (Sep 27, 2012)

PoliticalChic said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> > In Islamic countries free speach is an alien concept, it just doesn't exist. You are not free to say what you want in those countries, talking bad about a countries leader or dictator would get you picked up by the secret police, nevermind if you talked bad about Islam. Just the idea that someone would mock Islam and talk bad about it is just not fathomable to them and of course they want to end it.
> ...



New York has so many Muslims, it could be a Muslim country.


----------



## idb (Sep 27, 2012)

PoliticalChic said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



Exactly
Much like;


> Friends, Romans, countrymen, lend me your ears;
> I come to bury Caesar, not to praise him.


----------



## Wry Catcher (Sep 27, 2012)

PoliticalChic said:


> When this way-Left President, with inordinate sensitivities when it comes to Islam, suggests he will be more 'flexible' after his re-election.....
> 
> ....the following is exactly what he means.
> 
> ...



I'm willing to abridge your 'speech' (I have).


----------



## JakeStarkey (Sep 27, 2012)

PC would be a great editer for an Islamofascist newsrag.  She is what she criticizes.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Sep 27, 2012)

High_Gravity said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > High_Gravity said:
> ...



NewYorkistan????


----------



## PoliticalChic (Sep 27, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> PC would be a great editer for an Islamofascist newsrag.  She is what she criticizes.





Im sorry I hurt your feeling when I called you stupid. 

I really thought you already knew.


----------



## del (Sep 27, 2012)

PoliticalChic said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > PC would be a great editer for an Islamofascist newsrag.  She is what she criticizes.
> ...





good one, chunky


----------



## thanatos144 (Sep 27, 2012)

yep here is Obama's view of the first amendment.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Sep 27, 2012)

idb said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > idb said:
> ...



1. I see....you imagined it to be pointless simply because you couldn't understand the inference!
I see your problem: to infer requires the ability to reason.


2. As a conservative never stands so tall as when she stoops to help a Lib....

...I'll acquiesce to do so!

Mark Antony said he was there to put Caesar to rest....not to advance the idea of his goodness.
The more intelligent understand that the very opposite was his intention....this is why you had trouble seeing the point.

This is the same with the Slate trial-balloon! 
To praise ending free speech....or to bury it?


The effort is to place the idea of limiting free speech in the what-passes-for-minds of the reliable Democrat voters.

Did you know that Canada does not allow free speech?



Your welcome.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Sep 27, 2012)

Oh, now your angst is showing, honey.  



PoliticalChic said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > PC would be a great editer for an Islamofascist newsrag.  She is what she criticizes.
> ...


----------



## PoliticalChic (Sep 27, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> Oh, now your angst is showing, honey.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Jakey...You better be wearing the Hurt Locker outfit

So...*you think I have some sort of 'dread' as exemplified by calling you stupid???*


What's funny is that you don't realize that *you've verified my claim.*


But, to gild the lily, check this out:
Ive been carefully observing your ability, and once we get beyond building a log cabin with your French fries, theres not too much in your resume.


Sound like I have any 'dread' relating to you?

Now it's time for you to head back into the Roach Motel


----------



## M.D. Rawlings (Sep 27, 2012)

For the sake of objectively, let us, for the moment, set aside the title of PoliticalChic's thread "End The First Amendment?" and examine a few of the ideas presented in Posner's piece.  Let's evaluate their meanings and their relative merits. 

*Salman Rushdie recently claimed that bad ideas, &#8220;like vampires &#8230; die in the sunlight&#8221; rather than persist in a glamorized underground existence. But bad ideas never die: They are zombies, not vampires. Bad ideas like fascism, Communism, and white supremacy have roamed the countryside of many an open society.  &#8212;Eric Posner​*This is the only statement in Posner's piece with which I agree.  The rest are the sort of claptrap that would allow the zombies to roam unchallenged.

For example:

*As often happens, what starts out as a grudging political settlement has become, when challenged from abroad, a dogmatic principle to be imposed universally.  &#8212;Eric Posner​*_Imposed universally_ is a startling choice of words . . .  given that he's conflating the unbridled free speech of Americans in a technologically global forum with an imposition on others abroad.  The only imposition being suggested here would be that exerted against the unbridled free speech of Americans, unless he's suggesting that Americans are demanding all societies have unbridled free speech because we demand nothing less in ours.  That's not startling; that's absurd.  

Some on this thread claim that PoliticalChic's dispute with Posner is off the mark, albeit, by confounding the essence of her dispute with the potential, universal threat to the  unbridled free speech of the global forum posed by certain members of the United Nations.  It's _I_ who posted the related U.N. story, and I never claimed that the actualization of this threat would necessarily overthrow the First Amendment in America . . . though such a thing would certainly have repercussions on the unfettered expression of American ideas abroad.  Make no mistake about that, and the reality of that, apparently, files right over the heads of some.

No.  PoliticalChick's dispute with Posner goes to his sentiments as they correspond with  those expressed by certain members of Obama's Administration, his associates, persons who are clearly not big fans of unbridled free speech, particularly when it comes to the expression of ideas with which they disagree.  That coupled with Obama's womanish, overly sensitive concerns for the feelings of barbarians, PoliticalChick suggests that we have good reason to be suspicious of the sincerity of Obama's declarations of allegiance to First Amendment liberties.

I agree.

So much for the strawmen erected by those attempting to obstruct access to the actual nature of PoliticalChick's observation and subsequent challenge.

Now onto more of Posner's tripe. . . .



*Suddenly, the disparagement of other people and their beliefs is not an unfortunate fact but a positive good.  &#8212;Eric Posner​*I'm gettin' a weepy, snot-stained hanky feelin'.  Excuse me for a moment. . . .

Ah, that's better.

What do bad manners, whether intended or perceived, have to do with the provisions of unbridled free speech?  The positive good, obviously, is unbridled free speech; the intended or perceived disparagements are among the incidental aspects of the same.



*It contributes to the &#8220;marketplace of ideas,&#8221; as though we would seriously admit that Nazis or terrorist fanatics might turn out to be right after all.  &#8212;Eric Posner​*Let's turn this on its head:  as though the self-anointed arbiters of "decency" in history have never been the "Nazis or terrorist fanatics" of the world.



*So symbolic attachment to uneasy, historically contingent compromises, and a half-century of judicial decisions addressing domestic political dissent and countercultural pressures, prevent the U.S. government from restricting the distribution of a video that causes violence abroad and damages America&#8217;s reputation.  &#8212;Eric Posner​*As the saying goes, never has so much been attributed to so little.  No.  The cause of the recent troubles goes to the depravity of mindless, nose-picking barbarians ginned up for decades by evil men with an agenda of world domination, not to any video.  And how is our reputation damaged by the insanity that rages in Islamic societies?

Imbecile!

The rest is just more of the same . . . with this bit of drivel thrown in&#8212;as if the first were true about the liberal view, as if the second were not a subliminal slight, an incomplete description of the conservative view and as if, in this instance, it were not America's very sovereignty assaulted, the video merely the pretext of cynical thugs . . . as if an unapologetic defense of human liberty were not a vital interest of U.S. foreign policy.

Can I get an _Amen_, brother and sisters? 

*And so combining the liberal view that government should not interfere with political discourse, and the conservative view that government should not interfere with commerce, we end up with the bizarre principle that U.S. foreign policy interests cannot justify any restrictions on speech whatsoever.  &#8212;Eric Posner​*
*crickets chirping*



Posts on related topic:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/249827-obamas-whiny-apology-tour-continues.html#post6058927

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/249827-obamas-whiny-apology-tour-continues.html#post6059627

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/249827-obamas-whiny-apology-tour-continues.html#post6060010

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/249827-obamas-whiny-apology-tour-continues.html#post6064232

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/249827-obamas-whiny-apology-tour-continues-2.html#post6068047


----------



## JakeStarkey (Sep 27, 2012)

PC, you have limited ability as a writer.  You write for a broken libertarian-oriented philosophy.  You get irked when you get laughed at.  You are being laughed at, and that is what the sensible posters here will be doing for a long, long time.

Tough for you.

You simply don't have what it takes.



PoliticalChic said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Oh, now your angst is showing, honey.
> ...


----------



## daveman (Sep 27, 2012)

del said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > del said:
> ...


You know how you like to pretend you're witty and clever?


----------



## daveman (Sep 27, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> Our little board loons keep on daving.



Hush, child.


----------



## daveman (Sep 27, 2012)

idb said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Obama's claim of being a Constitutional scholar strains credibility.
> ...


Do you really not know someone has to file a lawsuit first?  SCOTUS just doesn't act when they see fit?


----------



## daveman (Sep 27, 2012)

PoliticalChic said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> > In Islamic countries free speach is an alien concept, it just doesn't exist. You are not free to say what you want in those countries, talking bad about a countries leader or dictator would get you picked up by the secret police, nevermind if you talked bad about Islam. Just the idea that someone would mock Islam and talk bad about it is just not fathomable to them and of course they want to end it.
> ...



Remember, the First Amendment gives the left the right to damage public and private property.

Right, USMB lefties?


----------



## MikeK (Sep 27, 2012)

Two years ago I would have said I think you're wrong.

A year ago I would have said I don't think you're right.

Today I can only say I hope you're mistaken.


----------



## there4eyeM (Sep 28, 2012)

With all the attacks on personal liberty in recent times from both political parties, no one who associates with one can honestly defend or attack.

Being always a 'liberal' or always a 'conservative' shows an inflexibility that is less than human.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Sep 28, 2012)

MikeK said:


> Two years ago I would have said I think you're wrong.
> 
> A year ago I would have said I don't think you're right.
> 
> Today I can only say I hope you're mistaken.



Me too, Mikey......me too.


----------



## thanatos144 (Sep 28, 2012)

there4eyeM said:


> With all the attacks on personal liberty in recent times from both political parties, no one who associates with one can honestly defend or attack.
> 
> Being always a 'liberal' or always a 'conservative' shows an inflexibility that is less than human.



It is called being wrong (progressive) or right (conservative)....That isnt being inflexible idiot that's called following the truth.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Sep 28, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> PC, you have limited ability as a writer.  You write for a broken libertarian-oriented philosophy.  You get irked when you get laughed at.  You are being laughed at, and that is what the sensible posters here will be doing for a long, long time.
> 
> Tough for you.
> 
> ...






Jakel....

....I can't begin to tell you how very much I value your opinion! 


I won't waste a minute in taking your critique to heart!


----------



## JakeStarkey (Sep 28, 2012)

Thanatos, go listen to Rush for the gnashing of teeth, etc.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Sep 28, 2012)

And that is why you replied.  



PoliticalChic said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > PC, you have limited ability as a writer.  You write for a broken libertarian-oriented philosophy.  You get irked when you get laughed at.  You are being laughed at, and that is what the sensible posters here will be doing for a long, long time.
> ...


----------



## Sallow (Sep 28, 2012)

PoliticalChic said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > Obviously PC..you were making chocolate chip cookies when Obama was speaking to the UN on the topic..or you'd know that he vehmently defended the first amendment.
> ...



"Suggesting"? That merits the Tea Party Samurai seal of approval:


----------



## thanatos144 (Sep 28, 2012)

Sallow said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Sallow said:
> ...


I guess us tea party types need to be more like you progressive occupy types huh???? We should all do drugs, shit on police cars, incite violence and rape women.


----------



## rightwinger (Sep 28, 2012)

PoliticalChic said:


> When this way-Left President, with inordinate sensitivities when it comes to Islam, suggests he will be more 'flexible' after his re-election.....
> 
> ....the following is exactly what he means.
> 
> ...




You lack an understanding of the first amendment. The first amendment say "Congress shall pass no laws" which means you cannot be jailed or fined based on what you say. Nor can they suppress your speech. It is a major right of a free people

There is no right that says you cannot face consequences for what you say. You can still be ridiculed, condemned, ostricized or suffer consequences. If you tell your boss that his wife is fat and ugly...he can fire you. You have no first amendment protections

Someone who makes an offensive film can be criticized. Even by his own government. He is not protected by the first amendment


----------



## JakeStarkey (Sep 28, 2012)

Thanatos, you do not have a right to not be offended when someone tells you that your views are stupid and unAmerican.  You do have a right to metaphorically return fire.

See how that works?


----------



## thanatos144 (Sep 28, 2012)

rightwinger said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > When this way-Left President, with inordinate sensitivities when it comes to Islam, suggests he will be more 'flexible' after his re-election.....
> ...


And yet you hypocritical hack they arrested a person for his speech.....


----------



## JakeStarkey (Sep 28, 2012)

They arrested the person for violating his probation.

Stop lying.


----------



## there4eyeM (Sep 28, 2012)

thanatos144 said:


> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> > With all the attacks on personal liberty in recent times from both political parties, no one who associates with one can honestly defend or attack.
> ...



If I were ever to lower myself to the level of calling someone "idiot", this poster would be at the forefront of the candidates.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Sep 28, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> They arrested the person for violating his probation.
> 
> Stop lying.




And that's the reason he got the attention???



You Lefties never seem able to connect the dots unless the NYTimes tells you to....


----------



## PoliticalChic (Sep 28, 2012)

rightwinger said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > When this way-Left President, with inordinate sensitivities when it comes to Islam, suggests he will be more 'flexible' after his re-election.....
> ...



1. Free speech opens one to charges of 'hate crime' in Canada...

2. "Savage, who broadcasts from San Francisco, was heard on nearly 400 stations and has gained notoriety for offending immigrants and minorities, calling the Muslim holy book, the Quran, a "book of hate" and being banned in 2009 from traveling to England for allegedly fostering extremism or hatred. "
News from The Associated Press



But no way the Progressives can make it happen here, true, leftwinger?


----------



## PoliticalChic (Sep 28, 2012)

there4eyeM said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> > there4eyeM said:
> ...



Wadda guy!...I see beatification in your future.


----------



## Moonglow (Sep 28, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> They arrested the person for violating his probation.
> 
> Stop lying.



dillusion is not a lie


----------



## Moonglow (Sep 28, 2012)

PoliticalChic said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > They arrested the person for violating his probation.
> ...



When you use 4 or 5 different names in public in a month and you are on probation from doing so, then the fire is started by oneself, blaming someone else is an old addicts ruse.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Sep 28, 2012)

Then, Peggy, don't live in Canada, huh?

And, no, Americans are not going to allow the 1st Amendment to be overturned.

What don't you get?



PoliticalChic said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...


----------



## rightwinger (Sep 28, 2012)

PoliticalChic said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



Neither Canada nor England are covered by our Constitution


----------



## there4eyeM (Sep 28, 2012)

PoliticalChic said:


> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> > thanatos144 said:
> ...



Doubt it; not part of that persuasion (or any other). They reserve that distinction for their own.

Note: I may be an idiot and that may be indicated by even responding to such a reprehensible poster as 'death head'. In the context of my above post, her/his verbiage is idiotic, yet I refrain from calling the individual 'idiot'.


----------



## there4eyeM (Sep 28, 2012)

Perhaps other countries will progress to better free speech protection.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings (Sep 28, 2012)

rightwinger said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > When this way-Left President, with inordinate sensitivities when it comes to Islam, suggests he will be more 'flexible' after his re-election.....
> ...



Seriously?  

You really believe you posted something profound here, something new or startling, something PoliticalChick doesn't know, doesn't understand from a glance, doesn't take for granted?

LOL!

rightwinger, your mundane truisms have absolutely nothing to do with what we're talking about.  You're not even close.   You might as well be traipsing about in a tutu on the planet Pluto and singing Barry Manilow tunes.

Read this and get back to us, or don't read it and go away: 

Some on this thread claim that PoliticalChic's dispute with Posner is off the mark, albeit, by confounding the essence of her dispute with the potential, universal threat to the unbridled free speech of the global forum posed by certain members of the United Nations. It's _I_ who posted the related U.N. story, and I never claimed that the actualization of this threat would necessarily overthrow the First Amendment in America . . . though such a thing would certainly have repercussions on the unfettered expression of American ideas abroad. Make no mistake about that, and the reality of that, apparently, files right over the heads of some.

No. PoliticalChick's dispute with Posner goes to his sentiments as they correspond with those expressed by certain members of Obama's Administration, his associates, persons who are clearly not big fans of unbridled free speech, particularly when it comes to the expression of ideas with which they disagree. That coupled with Obama's womanish, overly sensitive concerns for the feelings of barbarians, PoliticalChick suggests that we have good reason to be suspicious of the sincerity of Obama's declarations of allegiance to First Amendment liberties.  &#8212;M.D. Rawlings​
http://www.usmessageboard.com/media/249910-end-the-first-amendment-4.html#post6067535

Is it just me or is anyone else tired of wading through reams of drivel on threads that should be interesting?


----------



## PoliticalChic (Sep 28, 2012)

rightwinger said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Strangely  enough....neither are we.

Not since King FDR the 1st......


----------



## rightwinger (Sep 28, 2012)

PoliticalChic said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



We follow the Constitution more closely after FDR than we did before

Ask any black American


----------



## JakeStarkey (Sep 28, 2012)

Ask almost any minority, including women.



rightwinger said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


----------



## PoliticalChic (Sep 28, 2012)

rightwinger said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > When this way-Left President, with inordinate sensitivities when it comes to Islam, suggests he will be more 'flexible' after his re-election.....
> ...





Psstt....just between the two of us....there's nothing that this President could say or do that would make you step out of line of Lock-step Liberals...is there......including this:



"Obama: The future must not belong to those who slander the Prophet of Islam

...out of the mouth of this president before, but to hear him abandon our American values so quickly in front of world leaders and suggest that slandering the Prophet of Islam is something that should be condemned? Are you kidding me?"
HOLY CRAP! Obama tells the UN The future must not belong to those who slander the Prophet of Islam » The Right Scoop -


----------



## rightwinger (Sep 28, 2012)

PoliticalChic said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...




"Obama: The future must not belong to those who slander the Prophet of Islam

You have a problem with that?

You are truly a sick bitch


----------



## PoliticalChic (Sep 28, 2012)

rightwinger said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



The only way you could, in honesty, claim that, would be if you were totally ignorant of history...

...so here is the tutorial you so richly require:


1. 	Some believe that there are three co-equal branches of government, yet, *under FDR, that was only intermittently true.* The Supreme Court, for example, upheld the confiscation and arbitrary revaluation of the price of gold, and the cancellation of mortgage debtboth plainly *violations of the Constitutions Contract Clause.*

a.	The Great Depression was a perfect opportunity for American socialists, interventionists, and advocates of omnipotent government to prevail in their long struggle against the advocates of economic liberty, free enterprise, and limited, constitutional government. *FDR led the statists in using the economic crisis to level massive assaults on freedom and the Constitution. *A good example of the kind of battles that were taking place at the state level is the 1935 U.S. Supreme Court case Home Building & Loan Association v. *Blaisdell,* in which the Four Horsemen  Supreme Court Justices George Sutherland, James C. McReynolds, Willis Van Devanter, and Pierce Butler  banded together in an unsuccessful attempt to hold back the forces of statism and collectivism.


b.	The Blaisdells, like so many other Americans in the early 1930s, lacked the money to make their mortgage payments. They defaulted and the bank foreclosed, selling the home at the foreclosure sale.  The Minnesota legislature had enacted a law that provided that a debtor could go to court and seek a further extension of time in which to redeem the property. The Supreme Court of Minnesota upheld the constitutionality of the new redemption law, and the bank appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.


c.	*Constitution: No State shall . . . pass any . . . Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts. . ..* Did the Minnesota redemption law impair the loan contract between the building and loan association and the Blaisdells? It would seem *rather obvious that it did. *But in a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court held otherwise. American statists and collectivists won the Blaisdell case, which helped to open the floodgates on laws, rules, and regulations at the state level governing economic activity in America. And their leader, Franklin Roosevelt, was leading their charge on a national level.


d.	But what happens when an exercise of the police powers *contradicts an express prohibition in the Constitution, which is supposed to be the supreme law of the land,* trumping both state legislatures and state courts? That was the issue that confronted the U.S. Supreme Court in Blaisdell. Writing for the majority, Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes set forth the applicable principles:  Emergency does not create power. Emergency does not increase granted power or remove or diminish the restrictions imposed upon power granted or reserved. The Constitution was adopted in a period of grave emergency. Its grants of power to the Federal Government and its limitations of the power of the States were determined in the light of emergency and they are not altered by emergency. What power was thus granted and what limitations were thus imposed are questions which have always been, and always will be, the subject of close examination under our constitutional system.  While emergency does not create power, emergency may furnish the occasion for the exercise of power. . .. The constitutional question presented in the light of an emergency is whether the power possessed embraces the particular exercise of it in response to particular conditions. . ..The economic interests of the State may justify the exercise of its continuing and dominant protective power notwithstanding interference with contracts.


e.	So there you have it. In the old horse-and-buggy era, *the individual and his freedom were supreme but now in the new modern era, the collective interests of society would have to prevail. And society could no longer be bound by such quaint notions of constitutional limitations *on state power, especially not during emergencies and especially not when the good of all depends on state action. Economic Liberty and the Constitution, Part 9


f.	In 1937, the court buckled and ceased to act as the guardian of economic liberty, and as a limit on the extension of federal government power. It now upheld many New Deal measures.
King FDR the 1st.

The end of the late, great United States Constitution.



OK....now you can do one of your 'is not, is not' posts......


----------



## PoliticalChic (Sep 28, 2012)

rightwinger said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...





Once you descend to that language, I know I've been proven correct, and you know it.



Free speech means that one can say what soever they choose, without a scolding by the President of the United States.


----------



## rightwinger (Sep 28, 2012)

PoliticalChic said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



The first amendment says nothing of the kind. You are free to say what you want.....you are also free to face the consequences

Including universal condemnation


----------



## daveman (Sep 28, 2012)

Moonglow said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...


Oh, you mean like Obama blaming the film when the film was not to blame?


----------



## PoliticalChic (Sep 28, 2012)

rightwinger said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



A President of the United States does not criticize citizens for critiquing any religion.

And his inordinate sensitivity to this, and only this, particular religion, gives one cause to wonder.

Oh....not you....I was referring to those who support American rights and values.


----------



## daveman (Sep 28, 2012)

rightwinger said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


Can you find a similar quote from The One saying "The future must not belong to those who slander Jesus Christ, the Son of God"?

Yeah, I can't, either.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Sep 28, 2012)

rightwinger said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



You are an ignorant fellow....a favorable characteristic for a reliable Democrat voter...

I'm amused by this:
"Ask any black American."

Do you know who FDR's first Supreme Court nominee was?

Hugo Black was his first, in 1937. This* KKK Senator from Alabama* wrote the majority decision on Korematsu v. US; in 1967, he said They all look alike to a person not a Jap. Engage: Conversations in Philosophy: "They all look alike to a person not a Jap"*: The Legacy of Korematsu at OSU


Think that was a wise choice?
"Ask any black American."


...then ask any Japanese American.


----------



## daveman (Sep 28, 2012)

rightwinger said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


Does that include property damage?  

Pundit for MSNBC, CNN, arrested after vandalizing anti-jihad poster in New York - National Crime & Courts | Examiner.com
According to the Post, Eltahawy, who describes herself as a liberal Muslim, sprayed pink paint on a sign that calls enemies of Israel "savages."

While others watched her deface the sign, Pamela Hall, identified by the Post as "a Manhattan mom who supports the message of the ads," rushed to stop Eltahawy.

Do you have a right to do this? Hall asked.

I do actually, Eltahawy said. I think this is freedom of expression, just as this [the ad] is freedom of expression.​Idiot moonbat.


----------



## rightwinger (Sep 28, 2012)

PoliticalChic said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



Our President makes a stand against hate speech

Like all true Americans should


----------



## rightwinger (Sep 28, 2012)

daveman said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



Nice cut and paste

Too bad it is not relevant


----------



## daveman (Sep 28, 2012)

rightwinger said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
-- Evelyn Beatrice Hall and the American Right

I disapprove of what you say, so you should be prevented from saying it and punished if you do say it.
-- The American Left


----------



## PoliticalChic (Sep 28, 2012)

rightwinger said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...




Only mindless dolts who need to back any thing he says or does....on pain of losing their progressive-creds.

American Presidents stand up for the First Amendment.

....then there's you, Obama, and Neville Chamberlain.

Nothing worth standing for?


----------



## daveman (Sep 28, 2012)

rightwinger said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


It's amazingly relevant.  The poster-defacer expressed her opinion, and faced the consequences for it.

But it surprised her:
Eltahawy responded with profanity and "seemed stunned when an NYPD officer and an MTA cop arrived momentarily after and put cuffs on her."​  What a moron.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Sep 28, 2012)

rightwinger said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...




You mean that you don't realize that every word you write is 'cut and paste' from the NYTimes and the DNC ....you just plagiarize by not giving the credit.


----------



## rightwinger (Sep 28, 2012)

The First Amendment provides no protections against ridicule or condemnation


----------



## rightwinger (Sep 28, 2012)

PoliticalChic said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



Link


----------



## PoliticalChic (Sep 28, 2012)

rightwinger said:


> The First Amendment provides no protections against ridicule or condemnation



*"Obama's U.N. Talk Bolsters The U.N.'s Assault On Free Speech*

Obama administration initially denied the attacks had anything to do with 9/11 but instead *attributed them to free expression in America,* in the form of a crudely-made, months-old film on YouTube.com (Innocence of Muslims) which mocks Mohammad, the alleged prophet of Muslims. Prior to the 9/11 assaults the Obama administration failed to sufficiently arm Marines at its embassies, and since then it has failed to avenge the murders and vandalism, while also *openly undermining the American commitment to free expression."*
Obama's U.N. Talk Bolsters The U.N.'s Assault On Free Speech - Forbes


----------



## JakeStarkey (Sep 28, 2012)

You mutton headed moron.

Of course the president has a right to criticize stupid talk.

What world do you live in: Libertarian Loonyville?

The president has the right to free speech, just like you and that idiot daveman.

You two hurt Romney's chances with your immaturity.



PoliticalChic said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...


----------



## rightwinger (Sep 28, 2012)

PoliticalChic said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > The First Amendment provides no protections against ridicule or condemnation
> ...



Ouch...

Is that the best you can do?  All those years of education and you are clueless about our First Amendment


----------



## JakeStarkey (Sep 28, 2012)

If the above is the 1st Amendment understanding of the far right, good, let them express it, so they can be told how stupid they are.  Good heavens.


----------



## rightwinger (Sep 28, 2012)

The First Amendment even protects PCs right to whine


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Sep 28, 2012)

PoliticalChic said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > The First Amendment provides no protections against ridicule or condemnation
> ...



That was an ignorant, idiotic article. 

The First Amendment places restrictions only on government concerning prior restraint or restrictions of free expression; First Amendment case law provides clear guidance as to what government may restrict and what it may not. Pornography is protected speech, for example, obscenity, not. 

But citizens expressing opinions concerning given speech, either elected official or private citizen, including the condemnation of expression one considers offensive or inappropriate, is in no way a First Amendment, Free Speech issue; it in no way undermines free expression, nor does it violate the First Amendment. 

Clearly this is a pathetic effort by the partisan right to contrive yet another controversy where none exists.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Sep 29, 2012)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



1. "That was an ignorant, idiotic article."
Tell the Leftwing Slate Magazine guys.

2. "The First Amendment places restrictions only on government concerning prior restraint or restrictions of free expression; First Amendment case law provides clear guidance as to what government may...blah, blah, blah..."

If you were a more educate fellow you'd know that constitutional restrictions haven't been a factor since the Progressive Democrat King FDR the 1st ended it.


3. "Clearly this is a pathetic effort by the partisan right ..."
You are truly a dunce.

"But, as Slate founder Michael Kinsley said, "an opinion is not a bias." True, but they rhyme. During the week of Feb. 16, Slate's* liberal stable of writers*..."
The Slight Liberal Bias of Slate Magazine - Yahoo! Voices - voices.yahoo.com


You should stick to what you do best....sweeping up. 
You missed a spot.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Sep 29, 2012)

rightwinger said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Let's see if you're capable of learning at your age....


"University of Chicago law professor Eric Posner created an Internet sensation yesterday with an article for Slate in which he argued that the United States overvalues free speech. 
Unfortunately but predictably, academics seem to be leading the charge against freedom of speech in the wake of the controversy over the video. University of Pennsylvania religious studies professor Anthea Butler kicked off the effort with a USA Today editorial calling for the films producer to be jailed for angering people on the other side of the world. Posner, a law professor, adds more heft to the argument, but ultimately falls far short of making a solid case that American free expression should be made contingent on the religious beliefs of radical Muslims.

Posner begins by arguing that our reverence for unfettered free speech is misplaced, as the First Amendment did not really come into its own until the second half of the 20th century, and that before that, the U.S. periodically cracked down on anarchists, socialists, Communists, pacifists, and other dissenters.

Read more: Eric Posner is wrong about free speech | The Daily Caller


----------



## JakeStarkey (Sep 29, 2012)

PC continues to babble and blather.

No 1st Amendment problem exists.

Her continual postings here, no matter how junior high in concept, prove it.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Sep 29, 2012)

rightwinger said:


> The First Amendment provides no protections against ridicule or condemnation



Correct, it only disables government from preempting free expression when such restrictions are found offensive to the Constitution; citizens in and out of government, individuals and organizations, are free to ridicule or condemn one another with impunity, provided such speech not cross the line into defamation/libel.


----------



## rightwinger (Sep 29, 2012)

PoliticalChic said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



Damn...is free speech great or what?

Posner and Butler are allowed to print their opinions on the state of our first amendment rights

We even allow Political Chic to cut and paste off of right wing propaganda blogs to her hearts content


----------



## peach174 (Sep 29, 2012)

When we have a President that says this in his U.N. speech-
"The Future can not belong to those who slander Islam".
This is an attack on our 1st amendment.


----------



## rightwinger (Sep 29, 2012)

peach174 said:


> When we have a President that says this in his U.N. speech-
> "The Future can not belong to those who slander Islam".
> This is an attack on our 1st amendment.



No it's not....condemning hate speech does not infringe on the first amendment


----------



## thanatos144 (Sep 29, 2012)

rightwinger said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> > When we have a President that says this in his U.N. speech-
> ...



Then he would have to condemn his own speech.


----------



## peach174 (Sep 29, 2012)

rightwinger said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> > When we have a President that says this in his U.N. speech-
> ...



It's not hate speech.

Does any of this apply to the terrilbe things said and done about Christians?
What would everyone be saying if he said "The Future can not belong to those who slander Christians"?


----------



## rightwinger (Sep 29, 2012)

peach174 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > peach174 said:
> ...



Hate speech is hate speech. Same would apply to those who slander blacks or gays

Why does the right get so upset if someone defends Islam?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Sep 29, 2012)

You attack free speech when you write that, Peach.

What if I say the Future can not belong to those who slander the Far Right?  Would you like that?



peach174 said:


> When we have a President that says this in his U.N. speech-
> "The Future can not belong to those who slander Islam".
> This is an attack on our 1st amendment.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Sep 29, 2012)

Because only the Far Right can use hate speech with impunity, so they believe.


----------



## peach174 (Sep 29, 2012)

rightwinger said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...




Blacks slander Whites, Gay's slander straight people, this is acceptable, but when it's the other way around it's hate speech.
Defending Islam, all is freedom of speech.
I noticed that you ignored the questions about Christians.
No one is upset about defending Islam.
Shutting up those who want to say things against peoples religious beliefs, is against freedom of speech.


----------



## rightwinger (Sep 29, 2012)

peach174 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > peach174 said:
> ...



First Amendment allows you to speak out against anyone who slanders Christians. Nobody has shut anyone up

Is this a great country or what?


----------



## peach174 (Sep 29, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> You attack free speech when you write that, Peach.
> 
> What if I say the Future can not belong to those who slander the Far Right?  Would you like that?
> 
> ...



That is the point Jake.
Our Freedom of speech gives us the right to slander the far right as well as far right has to slander the far left.
What the President said at the U.N. is no one has the right to slander Islam.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Sep 29, 2012)

I don't think anyone in America wants to shut off your right to criticize Islam, Peach, except those who hate the 1st Amendment, like Sunni Man.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Sep 29, 2012)

I don't think that is what he said or was his intent, now was it?

And he has the right to his free speech as well.



peach174 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > You attack free speech when you write that, Peach.
> ...


----------



## Katzndogz (Sep 29, 2012)

peach174 said:


> When we have a President that says this in his U.N. speech-
> "The Future can not belong to those who slander Islam".
> This is an attack on our 1st amendment.



Slandering islam is a basic right and worthy of the best of our fights.   Like slandering Christianity is a basic right that people use every day.  Slandering Judaism is a right exercised by people around the world.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Sep 29, 2012)

peach174 said:


> When we have a President that says this in his U.N. speech-
> "The Future can not belong to those who slander Islam".
> This is an attack on our 1st amendment.



Ignorant partisan nonsense. 

The president is not advocating a law be passed to arrest, prosecute, and punish those who engage in hate speech against Muslims  that would constitute an attack on the First Amendment. 

Needless to say such a measure wound never pass Constitutional muster. 

The president merely states a truism: that the future must not belong to those who hate.


----------



## thanatos144 (Sep 29, 2012)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> > When we have a President that says this in his U.N. speech-
> ...











no one arrested?


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Sep 29, 2012)

thanatos144 said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> > peach174 said:
> ...



Youre kidding, right  no one can be this blind, partisan, and stupid.


----------



## thanatos144 (Sep 29, 2012)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> > C_Clayton_Jones said:
> ...



Apparently you can be..... Tell me how does it feel to support fascism?


----------



## peach174 (Sep 29, 2012)

To be able to speak against the violence of some that are Muslims is our 1st amendment right.
We are not slandering all Muslims.
The ones who are for Jihad are not all Muslims.
We have the right to speak up about those who support the slaughter of Innocent people.

People can discern the differences between Italians that were not mobsters, we speak against those crime Lords and can differentiate between the two, but we can's speak out against those who are for jihad.

To speak against Jihad is not condeming all Muslims and that is what they are trying to do.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Sep 29, 2012)

Ok, Peach, slow down.  Tell us who is "they".


----------



## peach174 (Sep 29, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> Ok, Peach, slow down.  Tell us who is "they".



Come on Jake you are not stupid.
Anyone who is trying to the lump the two together.


----------



## rightwinger (Sep 29, 2012)

peach174 said:


> To be able to speak against the violence of some that are Muslims is our 1st amendment right.
> We are not slandering all Muslims.
> The ones who are for Jihad are not all Muslims.
> We have the right to speak up about those who support the slaughter of Innocent people.
> ...



Nobody said it was

The issue has nothing to do with Jihad or violence from radical Muslims.  It has to do with someone who posted an offensive video against Mohammad. He was condemned as he should have been


----------



## Zoom-boing (Sep 29, 2012)

peach174 said:


> To be able to speak against the violence of some that are Muslims is our 1st amendment right.
> We are not slandering all Muslims.
> The ones who are for Jihad are not all Muslims.
> *We have the right to speak up about those who support the slaughter of Innocent people.
> ...




Apparently not.




> On Friday, TheBlaze spoke with a spokesperson who confirmed some of the details surrounding the case, while clarifying the new changes that passed on Thursday. As noted,* one of the emergent provisions that was added into the public companys advertising standards in the wake of the Geller debate allows the MTA to deny ads it believes could incite violence (this was not mentioned in the press release the agency put out about the changes).*
> 
> As previously noted, a document, reflecting yesterdays changes, was provided by the MTA to TheBlaze this morning. It highlights the transit authoritys advertising standards and reads, in part, The licensee (advertising contractor) shall not display or maintain any advertisement that falls within one or more of the following categories. One of the category sections reads:
> 
> The advertisement, or any information contained in it, is directly adverse to the commercial or administrative interests of the MTA or is harmful to the morale of MTA employees or contains material the display of which the MTA reasonably foresees would incite or provoke violence or other immediate breach of the peace, and so harm, disrupt, or interfere with safe, efficient, and orderly transit operations.



Conservatives Anti-Jihad Subway Ad Leads to New MTA Policies: NYC Authority Can Now Ban Ads That Could Incite or Provoke Violence | TheBlaze.com


----------



## daveman (Sep 29, 2012)

rightwinger said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> > When we have a President that says this in his U.N. speech-
> ...


The concept of hate speech itself infringes on the First Amendment.

...unless you really DO believe there is a right to not be offended.


----------



## rightwinger (Sep 29, 2012)

daveman said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > peach174 said:
> ...



No it doesn't at all......since the first amendment allows hate speech


----------



## daveman (Sep 29, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> Because only the Far Right can use hate speech with impunity, so they believe.


Unsurprisingly, Fakey supports the leftist idea of Thought Control via hate speech laws.


----------



## daveman (Sep 29, 2012)

rightwinger said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


Indeed it does.  And always will, hopefully.

But the left has ever sought to criminalize ideas with which they disagree.


----------



## gallantwarrior (Sep 29, 2012)

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Related:
> 
> *Muslim Leaders Make Case for Global Blasphemy Ban at U.N.
> By Patrick Goodenough
> ...



Interesting that representatives of Islam tell us that "blasphemy", as so narrowly defined by their proponents, incites violence.  But exactly who perpetrates that violence?  And just how does violent and murderous suppression of any other religious group, particularly Christians, escape the Muslim demand that religion be universally respected and protected?


----------



## Katzndogz (Sep 29, 2012)

thanatos144 said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> > peach174 said:
> ...



Not the time depicted by the picture.  No one was arrested.


----------



## Katzndogz (Sep 29, 2012)

islam intends to hold us hostage until we give up our rights.   We give up the First Amendment or they will keep killing people until we do.  Of course if we did give up the First Amendment, that's only one step, more will follow after that.


----------



## gallantwarrior (Sep 29, 2012)

High_Gravity said:


> In Islamic countries free speach is an alien concept, it just doesn't exist. You are not free to say what you want in those countries, talking bad about a countries leader or dictator would get you picked up by the secret police, nevermind if you talked bad about Islam. Just the idea that someone would mock Islam and talk bad about it is just not fathomable to them and of course they want to end it.



When I am in one of their countries, I will remain aware of their laws in that regard and will be respectful of those laws.
This is our country, my country, and the laws governing this country should be respectfully observed by them when they are here.  That means if they find our laws offensive, they should stay in their countries.


----------



## gallantwarrior (Sep 29, 2012)

rightwinger said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > When this way-Left President, with inordinate sensitivities when it comes to Islam, suggests he will be more 'flexible' after his re-election.....
> ...



It is true that you might be required to face the consequences of your words.  As in the case you cite, where one observes the boss's wife is fat and ugly.  While you might be fired for that, you still have the right to express that opinion.  What should be understood is that with such freedom comes the responsibility to use it in an appropriate manner or suffer the consequences.  Fortunately, the boss has no legal recourse to lop off your head or fire bomb you house if your words are found offensive by him.


----------



## gallantwarrior (Sep 29, 2012)

daveman said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



Yes.  Lying like a rug is not unconstitutional.  Now, let's hope enough voting Americans find lying offensive enough to make the consequence the removal of the Liar-in-Chief from his throne in November.


----------



## there4eyeM (Sep 29, 2012)

Freedom and responsibility go hand in hand. They are inseperable. 

Many people verbalize a desire for freedom, yet flee responsibility. 

Freedom of expression does and should allow us to say absolutely anything. Responsibility might lead us to prudence about what, where and when. This would require rational thought, though, and that seems very lacking in a great part of the general population (not just the US).

I may be willing to take the consequences for what I say, but if it draws lightning that may hit others, I should take that into account. A coward hides behind children to yell taunts at an enemy who would throw stones.

But above all, it is not the speaker of words that is responsible for the actions of the hearers. Individuals should know how to judge what comes to their attention. Again, this means a capacity to reason which, also again, is sadly lacking. No one wants to take responsibility for their choices, or even believe that it is choice they are making.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings (Sep 29, 2012)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



LOL!

I have an idea.  

Since the leftists around here are too stupid to grasp the actual topic of this thread, let's talk about them instead.

You can always count on C_Clayton_Jones to rattle off some pedantic stream of drool.  He's our resident, self-appointed, constitutional schoolmarm who robotically regurgitates truisms writ by others and understood by him no further than the extent of their strictest literal meanings.  In other words, he's a walking monologue of academic jargon, a slogan spouter.  His IQ is cliché raised to the infinite power.  

Never forget that in spite of his oft-repeated admonitions about nuance and open-mindedness, lefty is the Bruce Jenner of the black-and-white thought games, a veritable virtuoso of the slammed-shut door.

The thrust of the thread as tendered by PoliticalChick, as well as the essence of the _Forbes_ article, once again (LOL!), is this:

PoliticalChick's dispute with Posner goes to his sentiments as they correspond with those expressed by certain members of Obama's Administration, his associates, persons who are clearly not big fans of unbridled free speech, particularly when it comes to the expression of ideas with which they disagree. That coupled with Obama's womanish, overly sensitive concerns for the feelings of barbarians, PoliticalChick suggests that we have good reason to be suspicious of the sincerity of Obama's declarations of allegiance to First Amendment liberties. &#8212;M.D. Rawlings​
This nuanced, though readily apparent, extrapolation enters the vacuum of the leftist's cerebral black hole, bypasses my annihilation of Posner's conflated red herrings, rattles around a bit (crash, bang, hiccup) and emerges from the other side as a non sequitur, a rather pedestrian recitation of textbook blather regarding the First Amendment proper . . . about which no one with an IQ above that of a mild rash is confused.

*"[C]ontrive yet another controversy"?!*

The only contrivance here, *C_Clayton_Jones*, assuming you have the smarts for such machinations, is yours.  The only controversy, besides the one none of you leftists are talking about, is over the height from which you were dropped on your head at birth.

Leftists calling conservatives _idiots_ when the latter are flying lightyears above their pointed heads!


----------



## M.D. Rawlings (Sep 29, 2012)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> > When we have a President that says this in his U.N. speech-
> ...




LOL!  

Everything you've written in this thread is needless to say, given that everything you've written is one red herring after another.  

Clearly, the point that peach is making is that Obama's claptrap is an offense to First Amendment principles:  claptrap that is premised on the "offense" taken from a video, that confounds the matters of cause and effect, confounds the concerns of human rights and justice; claptrap presented on a world stage of foreign policy; claptrap that reveals a deplorable lack of understanding of the demands of liberty; claptrap that exhibits a careless, even dangerous, disregard for the categorical connotations of terms and rhetoric.

Contempt for Islam and its prophet, what you call _hate_ in your harebrained, politically correct sense, is not slander in any legal sense. . . except in the statist regimes of the Islamic world.  How do you think _they_ heard Obama's statement?

Doh!

The forum in which he uttered that sentence is the friggin' United Nations!  

In the meantime, associates of Obama, including members of his administration, Marxists all, Robert McChesney, Julius Genachowski, Jen Howard, Van Jones, Mark Lloyd and so on, talk about a "religious attachment to the idea of a 'free-press' " and advocate that the government should take over all forms of media and dictate the content.  Whores and thugs, the pushers of the Fairness Doctrine . . . . a policy that clearly violates the principles of the First Amendment, a policy that was repealed by the FCC, not overturned by the Court, in 1987.  Indeed, the leftist Court of 1969 upheld the "right" of the FCC to enforce it.

Obama's friends and associates tell me all I need to know about what sleeps within his heart of hearts behind his wall of bullshit.

Oh, did I confuse you again by returning to the topic that PoliticalChick and I and others are actually talking about?


----------



## M.D. Rawlings (Sep 29, 2012)

rightwinger said:


> The issue has nothing to do with Jihad or violence from radical Muslims.  It has to do with someone who posted an offensive video against Mohammad. He was condemned as he should have been.



Exhibit A:  blind, partisan and stupid.

The answer to your question, C_Clayton_Jones, is _yes_.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Sep 29, 2012)

No, M. D., don't use a word of which you don't even understand the definition: marxism.

You are illiterate.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Sep 29, 2012)

PoliticalChic said:


> When this way-Left President, with inordinate sensitivities when it comes to Islam, suggests he will be more 'flexible' after his re-election.....
> 
> ....the following is exactly what he means.
> 
> ...



The idiotic premise of this failed thread was that condemning hate speech related to Islam was some sort of attack on the First Amendment, resulting in its coming to an end. 

This has been demonstrated to be clearly wrong. 

Absent government involvement, there are no First Amendment issues. 

And that the hate and ignorance exhibited by the right concerning Islam be shouted down in the free marketplace of political ideas is the consequence of the rights failure to make their case, they have only themselves to blame, not liberals, not the government, and not Muslims.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings (Sep 29, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> No, M. D., don't use a word of which you don't even understand the definition: marxism.
> 
> You are illiterate.



Uh-huh.

Because . . .

*crickets chirping*


----------



## M.D. Rawlings (Sep 30, 2012)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > When this way-Left President, with inordinate sensitivities when it comes to Islam, suggests he will be more 'flexible' after his re-election.....
> ...



He said, not with a bang, but a politically correct whimper, exposing the bottomless pit that is the depth of his moral and intellectual bankruptcy.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings (Sep 30, 2012)

there4eyeM said:


> Freedom and responsibility go hand in hand. They are inseperable.
> 
> Many people verbalize a desire for freedom, yet flee responsibility.
> 
> ...




Per the message you attached to my profile, assuming you're talking about the post in the above for which I gave you rep:  in truth, I'm not sure I completely agree with it; that is to say, it can be read as an apology for that which is utterly depraved, namely, lefty's mindless political correctness&#8212;potentially a two-edged sword subliminally raised against the right side of the argument unwaveringly confronting the wrong.

But perhaps you're aware of that. 

To the point: I believe that Islam _is_ a false religion from hell, its prophet, a depraved charlatan&#8212;an evil that must be confronted, not coddled or encourage. According to some that's slander and "hate". Right? But according to Christianity that's the hatred of evil . . . a necessary good, righteousness.

For I am the Way, the Truth and the Life; no man comes unto the Father except by Me.  &#8212;Jesus Christ​
If I believe that then I must necessarily believe that Islam and its prophet are blasphemous falsehoods.

I submit to you the example of Christ's love, the methodology of his ministry, as opposed to the violence and oppression at the tip of the sword wielded by Mohammed.

We have rage and destruction, murder and mayhem committed by Muslims in the streets of the Islamic world and yet we have this propoganda from that second-rate intellect, that filthy little punk, *C_Clayton_Jones*, that would do Ahmadinejad proud:

And that the hate and ignorance [?!] exhibited by the right concerning Islam be shouted down in the free marketplace of political ideas [the free marketplace of political ideas shouted down by Muslims?!] is the consequence of the right's failure [?!] to make their case, they have only themselves to blame [?!], not &#8216;liberals,&#8217; not the government, and not Muslims [?!].​
*crickets chirping*

Though he tries to deflect and distract one's attention with unqualified claims and the slings and arrows of marginalization, lefty invariably and unwittingly reveals what's in his heart of hearts.  He can't help himself.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Sep 30, 2012)

M. D. demonstrates the shallow end of libertarian thinking.


----------



## daveman (Sep 30, 2012)

M.D. Rawlings said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > No, M. D., don't use a word of which you don't even understand the definition: marxism.
> ...


Because he says so!


----------



## peach174 (Sep 30, 2012)

rightwinger said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> > To be able to speak against the violence of some that are Muslims is our 1st amendment right.
> ...




It has everything to do with Jihad and the Muslim Brotherhood.
Both want to get rid of our freedom of speech.
Jihad is doing it through violence and the Muslim Brotherhood wants to do it peacefully through laws. 
The Muslim Brotherhood is working to get Sharia law through all of the Western Countries.
Their first agenda is to get rid of our freedom of speech and then get Sharia law into the American laws.They are already doing that in some areas in our court system. They have done so in many European countries, 
Shara law is incompatible with American Constitutional laws.

The guy who did the video was a Muslim and turned to Christianity and made a film to show that Islam is a false religion. He has the right to do that.
He was arrested on probation violations , it had nothing to do with his video.

We had better wake up as to what is really going on here,we have quite a few Muslims in this country who wants to get Sharia law in our Country.

The Muslims who are protesting in Michigan are the ones who are with the Muslim Brotherhood. They want Shara law throughout the whole world. That is their goal.
Muslims in Dearborn rally against free speech, call for anti-blasphemy laws - National Policy & Issues | Examiner.com


----------



## JakeStarkey (Sep 30, 2012)

Libertarians blather, moderates and conservatives talk sense, righty extremists drool, lefties scrool.

Marxism has a particular definition and narrative.  Don't expect sensible Americans to even pay attention when folks go daving.


----------



## rightwinger (Sep 30, 2012)

peach174 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > peach174 said:
> ...



Dear God...
Jihad, destroying our freedom of speech, Sharia law in US

I thought this Glenn Beck, Hermann Cain bullshit went away


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Sep 30, 2012)

peach174 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > peach174 said:
> ...



This is no more outrageous than conservatives advocating for the denial of equal protection rights for same-sex couples or privacy rights concerning procreation. 

Why arent you denouncing those efforts equally offensive to the Constitution?


----------



## Katzndogz (Sep 30, 2012)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Those 'rights' aren't in the Constitution.  Freedom of Speech is part of the Bill of Rights.

Finding these dubious rights in the Constitution is like saying the right to free speech means everyone gets a free cell phone.


----------



## peach174 (Sep 30, 2012)

It has nothing to do with them.
It's actual reality.
BBC News - Growing use of Sharia by UK Muslims

Judge elevates Sharia law over US Constitution in Pennsylvania | Sharia Awareness Action Network

Judge Mark Martin&#8217;s statements and ruling in effect declared in an American court that Muslim immigrants may use Sharia law as a legal defense to attack American citizens who mock their faith and that ignorance of American law is an excuse for Muslim immigrants who violate state law.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings (Sep 30, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> M. D. demonstrates the shallow end of libertarian thinking.



Just for giggles, as I'm not a libertarian, because . . .

*crickets chirping*


----------



## JakeStarkey (Sep 30, 2012)

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.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings (Sep 30, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> 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!


----------



## M.D. Rawlings (Sep 30, 2012)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> This is no more outrageous than conservatives advocating for the denial of equal protection rights for same-sex couples or privacy rights concerning procreation.
> 
> Why aren&#8217;t you denouncing those efforts equally offensive to the Constitution?



"[N]o more outrageous"?  Note, once again, that *C_Clayton-Jones-Ahmadinejad* unwittingly acknowledges the truth about something he tried to deny, in this instance about the designs of so many in the Muslim community, hear and abroad.

Don't forget what he wrote before when he unwittingly revealed the content of his shriveled heart . . . in the face of Muslim barbarians raging and killing and destroying in the streets of the Islamic world:

And that the hate and ignorance exhibited by the right concerning Islam be shouted down in the free marketplace of political ideas *[The free marketplace of political ideas shouted down by Muslims!] *is the consequence of the right's failure to make their case, they have only themselves to blame, not &#8216;liberals&#8217;, not the government, and not Muslims.  &#8212;&#8212;Statist Bootlick C_Clayton_Jones-Ahmadinejad​


No.  Why aren't you, *C_Clayton-Jones-Ahmadinejad*, denouncing yourself as you lie and defame; that is to say, why aren't you telling the whole truth as you equate, *being the moral and intellectual degenerate that you are*, the defense of fundamental rights and the sanctity of human life with Islamic oppression?

*C_Clayton-Jones-Ahmadinejad* is sloganeering again, more propaganda.

"[E]qual protection rights for same-sex couples".  

Translation:  a whole _new_ regime of civil rights protections premised on sexual behavior, asserted more than two-hundred years _after_ the ratification of the Constitution and imposed by the government against the free exercise of fundamental rights, especially the natural, inalienable rights associated with private property, parental consent and authority, and free association as far as the eye can see.  

"[P]rivacy rights concerning procreation".  

Translation:  abortion on demand, including live-birth abortions, i.e., the murder of human beings hiding behind the legalese of Roe v. Wade, "discovered" nearly two-hundred years _after_ the ratification of the Constitution; the so-called war on women, that is, the audacity of those who would object to being compelled by the government to pay for lefty's sexual exploits and abortions&#8212;his privacy made public, his selfish wants repackaged as rights and entitlements.

These are the things that are alleged to be offensive to the Constitution.  Know that in every instance when lefty the statist bootlick talks about "constitutional rights" he will in actuality be talking about recent or non-existent civil rights "protections" imposed collectively by the state at the expense of fundamental rights, at the expense of the lives and liberties of others. 

More deflection.  More distractions.

________________________________________

In the meantime. . . .

The thrust of the thread as tendered by PoliticalChick, as well as the essence of the _Forbes_ article, once again, is this:

PoliticalChick's dispute with Posner goes to his sentiments as they correspond with those expressed by certain members of Obama's Administration, his associates, persons who are clearly not big fans of unbridled free speech, particularly when it comes to the expression of ideas with which they disagree. That coupled with Obama's womanish, overly sensitive concerns for the feelings of barbarians, PoliticalChick suggests that we have good reason to be suspicious of the sincerity of Obama's declarations of allegiance to First Amendment liberties. &#8212;M.D. Rawlings​


----------



## PoliticalChic (Sep 30, 2012)

M.D. Rawlings said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...




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 t*he better and dont 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


----------



## JakeStarkey (Sep 30, 2012)

M.D. and PC simply redefine terms and narratives they don't like.

That is why everybody but the far right and the libertarians laugh at them.

The whole world is out of step but them.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Sep 30, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> M.D. and PC simply redefine terms and narratives they don't like.
> 
> That is why everybody but the far right and the libertarians laugh at them.
> 
> The whole world is out of step but them.



And yet, strangely, you are unable to find any error....

I see only two possibilities:

Either you are obtunded, or

....we are correct in our theses.....


Wait...a third possibility reveals itself: both of the above.


And, you get to post without the added burden of having to remain within the parameters of truth!


----------



## daveman (Sep 30, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> M.D. and PC simply redefine terms and narratives they don't like.
> 
> That is why everybody but the far right and the libertarians laugh at them.
> 
> The whole world is out of step but them.



Redefining words is the sole province of the left, Fakey.


Exactly as you're doing here, because you don't like what M.D. and PC have to say.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Sep 30, 2012)

Quit daving for heaven's sake.  Now you are engaging in redefining reality.  No one who counts really cares what you think.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Sep 30, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> Quit daving for heaven's sake.  Now you are engaging in redefining reality.  No one who counts really cares what you think.



"No one who counts really cares what you think."

Really?
Did you interview every one? 

 Or is this "reporting" on the level of elementary-school gossip: "Everyone hates you"?

And....elementary school would be the operative term here.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Sep 30, 2012)

You are engaged in davying, PoliticalChick.  You think that you can "change that" by changing the narrative by changing terms and logical explanations.  You are fail and you will continue to be p'wned.

It is what it is.


----------



## rightwinger (Sep 30, 2012)

PoliticalChic said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Quit daving for heaven's sake.  Now you are engaging in redefining reality.  No one who counts really cares what you think.
> ...



We forgot daveman was your toadie


----------



## PoliticalChic (Sep 30, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> You are engaged in davying, PoliticalChick.  You think that you can "change that" by changing the narrative by changing terms and logical explanations.  You are fail and you will continue to be p'wned.
> 
> It is what it is.



Show mistakes in my posts, or you are simply a liar.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Sep 30, 2012)

rightwinger said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



"We"....you and your tapeworm?


Don't you realize that it is transparent that you've lost the argument...and know you've lost it....when the only comment you are able to post are about the person, rather than the subject?

I guess it's true about your learning new tricks, huh?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Sep 30, 2012)

Says the writer will personally attack anyone as casually as she says "hi".

  Tis what tis.  She has fail by her own words.  But then again she can "change that".


----------



## rightwinger (Sep 30, 2012)

PoliticalChic said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



Guess what?  daveman is still daveman

When he says " Political Chic is right, she really knows what she is talking about" it is coming from daveman

One of the few remaining on the board who actually buys into your line of shit


----------



## daveman (Sep 30, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> Quit daving for heaven's sake.  Now you are engaging in redefining reality.  No one who counts really cares what you think.



You mean you and your fellow leftists.


----------



## daveman (Sep 30, 2012)

rightwinger said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...


Oh, look:  A leftist coming to Fakey's defense.

In other words, just like always.


----------



## daveman (Sep 30, 2012)

rightwinger said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


What is it with you drooling idiot leftists and your claims to speak for everyone?

You can't form a coherent thought of your own.  And you expect us to believe you're the official spokesmoonbat?


----------



## PoliticalChic (Sep 30, 2012)

rightwinger said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Got to you again, didn't I.

It's the language...it's a give-away.


Since I know the subject and the analysis so much better than you, it's all you've got.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Sep 30, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> Says the writer will personally attack anyone as casually as she says "hi".
> 
> Tis what tis.  She has fail by her own words.  But then again she can "change that".





First thing I do every morn, is brush my teeth and sharpen my tongue.
Beware.


What's great is that when ever one of you Lefties can't rebut my posts, you scream 'fail.'

It's one of those "tells," but a little more subtle than a white flag.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Sep 30, 2012)

rightwinger said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Well, at least you got PC to actually type something of her own, rather than just cut n paste.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Sep 30, 2012)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...





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&#8230;or the opposite, expulsion if one doesn&#8217;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&#8230;but at the cost of obedience and the surrender his individuality.*
David Mamet


----------



## idb (Oct 1, 2012)

PoliticalChic said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Oh well, Mr Jones...it was good while it lasted...


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 1, 2012)

M. D.'s lack of logic as well as his confused philosophy make entertaining reading.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Oct 1, 2012)

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.


----------



## JQPublic1 (Oct 1, 2012)

PoliticalChic said:


> 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.
> ...



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 (Oct 1, 2012)

JQPublic1 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Now if only we could get you Liberals to do your own thinking.
> ...




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 (Oct 1, 2012)

PoliticalChic said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



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 (Oct 1, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> 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 todays 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 (Oct 1, 2012)

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?


----------



## daveman (Oct 1, 2012)

JQPublic1 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Now if only we could get you Liberals to do your own thinking.
> ...


You're not qualified to determine for me what my economic interests are.

Stop pretending you are.


----------



## JQPublic1 (Oct 1, 2012)

daveman said:


> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



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 (Oct 1, 2012)

PoliticalChic said:


> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



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!


----------



## MisterBeale (Oct 2, 2012)

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!  


> Banned and Challenged Classics
> 
> Each year, the ALA's Office for Intellectual Freedom records hundreds of attempts by individuals and groups to have books removed from libraries shelves and from classrooms.  See Frequently Challenged Books for more details.
> 
> ...


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 (Oct 2, 2012)

JQPublic1 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > JQPublic1 said:
> ...



"...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. *

Dont you wish that that could be said of you?


----------



## PoliticalChic (Oct 2, 2012)

MisterBeale said:


> 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?
> 
> ...




Nice post, Beale!

Is it true that the only book the Left doesn't want burned is Bradbury's 'Fahrenheit 451'?


----------



## daveman (Oct 2, 2012)

JQPublic1 said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > JQPublic1 said:
> ...


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.


----------



## MisterBeale (Oct 2, 2012)

PoliticalChic said:


> Nice post, Beale!
> 
> Is it true that the only book the Left doesn't want burned is Bradbury's 'Fahrenheit 451'?




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 (Oct 2, 2012)

MisterBeale said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Nice post, Beale!
> ...




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


----------



## MisterBeale (Oct 2, 2012)

PoliticalChic said:


> Relax, Beale....it was a joke.
> 
> Fahrenheit 451 is about book burning.....
> 
> ...



  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.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Oct 2, 2012)

MisterBeale said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Relax, Beale....it was a joke.
> ...



1. Actually, I'd rather use Schivelbusch...Wolfgang Schivelbusch, Three New Deals

2.	In 1933, Fascism was celebrating its eleventh year in power, in Italy, and the election of the National Socialists in Germany represented an unmitigated defeat for liberal democracy in Europes largest industrialized nation.

a.	At the beginning of the same month, FDR was inaugurated as President. And before Congress went into recess it granted powers to Roosevelt unprecedented in peacetime. From Congressional hearings, 1973: Since March 9, 1933, the United States has been in a state of declared national emergency. Emergency Powers Statutes (Senate Report 93-549)


3.	The National Socialists hailed these relief measures in ways you will recognize: 

a.	May 11, 1933, the Nazi newspaper Volkischer Beobachter, (Peoples Observer): Roosevelts Dictatorial Recovery Measures.

b.	And on January 17, 1934, We, too, as German National Socialists are looking toward America and Roosevelts adoption of National Socialist strains of thought in his economic and social policies comparable to Hitlers own dictatorial Fuhrerprinzip.

c.	And [Roosevelt], too demands that collective good be put before individual self-interest. Many passages in his book Looking Forward could have been written by a National Socialist.one can assume that he feels considerable affinity with the National Socialist philosophy.

d.	The paper also refers to the fictional appearance of democracy.

4.	In 1938, American ambassador Hugh R. Wilson reported to FDR his conversations with Hitler: Hitler then said that he had watched with interest the methods which you, Mr. President, have been attempting to adopt for the United States. I added that you were very much interested in certain phases of the sociological effort, notably for the youth and workmen, which is being made in Germany  cited in Franklin D. Roosevelt and Foreign Affairs, vol.2, p. 27.

So...I'll go with the definition of Right and Left that I gave earlier.


----------



## MisterBeale (Oct 2, 2012)

PoliticalChic said:


> "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."
> WORLD | Let's admit who we are | Marvin Olasky | July 17, 2010





PoliticalChic said:


> 1. Actually, I'd rather use Schivelbusch...Wolfgang Schivelbusch, &#8220;Three New Deals&#8221;
> 
> .
> .
> ...



I like you.  You don't use personal attacks, you construct arguments that are well thought out, and you are reasonably easy to follow. 

I don't really think that this disagreement of where Stalin falls on the political spectrum, or where Hitler falls is really a productive discussion as it regards to Free Speech, do you?

If you want, I will address your point of view though.  In order for political scientists to engage constructively in any meaningful way, they must agree on some standards.  Both of the men you have quoted for your sources, from what I have gathered, neither has posited a complete diagnostic, or analytical political spectrum for use in discerning where individuals and political leaders may lie.  

The first article that you quoted was from an evangelical leader, who has had controversy dog him at his own institution because it appears more than likely he is an agent of the Jesuits.  It is a quote out of context from a random article that has nothing to do with analyzing politicians or people along a political spectrum in any meaningful way, but rather an opinion piece about how people should be viewed based on morals and ethics.  This is not how political science is done.  The only thing that he does say, that most political scientists all can agree on, is that when we decide which chart we are going to use, we need to stick with consistency.  

Olasky quotes, "A more accurate spectrum would place totalitarians of many stripes on the left and defenders of religious, political, and economic freedom on the right."

Why?  Why get rid of age old, centuries used political theory to suit several individuals' purposes?  Unless he has, or you have compelling reason why, I think we should stick with the old methods, b/c that is what the ENTIRE PLANET uses.  What makes this one guy so special?  Why is his logic so reasonable?  Oh, he basis it on their behavior, not on their rational economic models, or on how they believe a State should operate.

The second author that you use as a reference is  Wolfgang Schivelbusch in &#8220;Three New Deals?&#8221;

His piece has nothing to do with the political spectrum.  It is a piece that argues that FDR's government reforms were national socialist in nature and that he, FDR, admired the Fascists of Europe.  Big deal, no news there.  So did Churchill.  They both knew what a bear the fascists were going to be, after all, their economies were essentially fascist in nature as well.  The continental fascists were making corporatist reforms that were far more effective at dealing with the global depression than the liberal democracies.  The big difference is that instead of a Cartel running the banking in Germany, like it was in the Anglo-American empires, the Nazi's decided to reserve this one sector of the economy for themselves, the State.  http://www.nber.org/chapters/c9477.pdfImagine that, the power of sound money.  Creating only as much credit in the system as you have resources and production.  Who would have thought the Germans would use Austrian Economic Policy?  Gee, shocker.  Scary.  How many wars has the Anglo-American alliance started because nations have challenged their fiat money?   

Wolfgang Schivelbusch's piece, although I am not able to get access to it, from everything I have read about it, say nothing about Stalin at all, nor about both Nazism and Communism being politics of the left.    I didn't know which review of the piece was better, the CATO institute, or Mises, what do you think?  Either way, neither supports your contention.  Even your post fails to address or support those specious claims issued by this nefarious character. . . Olasky.  (His bio reads like that of Oswald.    Can you say Jesuit?  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marvin_Olasky) 

http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/hitler-mussolini-roosevelt


> To compare is not to equate, as Schivelbusch says. It's sobering to note the real parallels among these systems. But it's even more important to remember that the U.S. did not succumb to dictatorship. Roosevelt may have stretched the Constitution beyond recognition, and he had a taste for planning and power previously unknown in the White House. But he was not a murderous thug. And despite a population that "literally waited for orders," as McCormick put it, American institutions did not collapse. The Supreme Court declared some New Deal measures unconstitutional. Some business leaders resisted it. Intellectuals on both the right and the left, some of whom ended up in the early libertarian movement, railed against Roosevelt. Republican politicians (those were the days!) tended to oppose both the flow of power to Washington and the shift to executive authority.



(Of course, the three "New Deals" that this essay is about, are those of Italy, Germany, and American, right?  You were a little disingenuous in your post making us think it was about America, Germany, and the USSR)

Just because the actions of Hitler and Stalin in their authoritarian rule were similar?  It does not make them on the same side of the political spectrum.  If you want to make your own political spectrum up, for your own personal use, that is fine, but it won't be recognized by any serious student of political science.  If you wrote down this rationale on an entry level political science test in college when asked, "Where on the political spectrum Hitler and Stalin fell?"  You would fail.  I don't care what school you go to, in what country.  We need to speak in common terms.   Scientists in the US started using metric ages ago, they don't go around insisting on using the English system because it suits them.  Don't try to re-invent the wheel.  

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_spectrum

*Political spectrum*


> A political spectrum is a way of modeling different political positions by placing them upon one or more geometric axes symbolizing independent political dimensions.
> 
> Most long-standing spectra include a right wing and left wing, which originally referred to seating arrangements in the 18th century French parliament. According to the simplest left-right axis, communism and socialism are usually regarded internationally as being on the left, opposite fascism and conservatism on the right. Liberalism can mean different things in different contexts, sometimes on the left, sometimes on the right. There is politics that rejects the conventional left-right spectrum, this is known as syncretic politics.[1][2]
> 
> However, researchers have frequently noted that a single left-right axis is insufficient in describing the existing variation in political beliefs, and often include other axes. Though the descriptive words at polar opposites may vary, often in popular biaxial spectra the axes are split between cultural issues and economic issues, each scaling from some form of individualism (or government for the freedom of the individual) to some form of communitarianism (or government for the welfare of the community). In this context, the contemporary American left is often considered individualist (or libertarian) on social/cultural issues and communitarian (or populist) on economic issues, while the contemporary American right is often considered communitarian (or populist) on social/cultural issues and individualist (or libertarian) on economic issues.



This was the system used at both Universities where I studied Political Science.  But then, I studied at State Universities, so that probably doesn't say much.  It is safe to say, this is the standard in American mainstream politics today if you are going to go beyond the classically defined left-right paradigm to address issues of Authoritarianism and Liberty.






This chart proposed by the Political Compass Organisation, which extends from -10 to +10 on each axis, is one of several competing models.  To take it and find out where you are, go here. . . http://www.politicalcompass.org/test








An example of a biaxial political spectrum chart; it is a variant of the Nolan chart.  To take it and find out where you are, go here. . . http://www.nolanchart.com/survey.php




Hans Slomp projection of the European political spectrum.[3]

Lastly, this one is a rather neat political spectrum map, for if you have ever visited political forums with a lot of foreign participants, the helps you to really gain a cultural understanding of international political view points.




A recreation of the Inglehart&#8211;Welzel Cultural Map of the World based on the World Values Survey.

. . . BTW, did you take debate in high school or college?  Would you perchance happen to be a lawyer?


----------

