Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Obama Rants Against The First Amendment

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
    One might note that the states with the highest costs / number of hours worked tend to be the most liberal / Progressive ones. Maybe a solution to the problem would be to make practicing Progressive Leftist politics a serious felony and eliminate the Progressive Left from society. It follows that rents for apartments would fall and workers on low wages would find them more affordable...
    Or maybe the reason those places are liberal when it comes to minimum wage laws is because it is more expensive to live there than out in the boondocks.

    Although I do like the whole neo-fascist approach to the issue. That has some promise.

    Comment


    • #62
      There are partners in a law firm that check out on the managing partner. There are directors in a company who represents the shareholders who check out on the CEO. If the CEO is retained and he fires you, maybe there is nothing wrong with him and there is something wrong with you. That is the problem with workers nowadays. They are either self-righteous or vindictive. God, I've been fired so many times and I admit it was my fault which is either erroneous on my part or misbehaving badly. Look at yourself in the mirror! (You don't email me, J.H. and call the CEO names like 'fat bastard', etc. etc. If he does that on you, you'll fire him [email protected]!!).
      Last edited by wilyfox; 25 May 15, 08:04.

      Comment


      • #63
        Originally posted by The Exorcist View Post
        That's because it is a starter wage earned by about 4% of the workers out there. Its not a way of life...

        ... unless you are a Marxist trying to put everyone on the same pay-scale no matter what they are doing. Raising the minimum wage decreases the number of people on the payroll, period. However, there are people out there who think that it would cause the guys in charge to lower their own salary... thus realizing the Maoist dream of putting everyone on the same pay-scale.
        Which would also reduce everyone to a minimum-pay rate of enthusiasm and effort.
        The point went completely over your head.

        People working 60+ hours a week are not lazy like FoxNews says...
        #occupyarmchairgeneral.
        Nothing is easier than self-deceit. For what each man wishes, that he also believes to be true. Demosthenes.
        Against logic there is no armor like ignorance. Laurence J. Peter

        Comment


        • #64
          Originally posted by The Exorcist View Post
          I have to disagree on principle, being someone that has a few of those.

          Honestly, you Progressives are tearing down so many good things, like Freedom, Liberty, privacy, property rights, and now you are saying that Free Choice itself is a crock?
          A very good detailed and compellling argument could be made and has been made that what we call "free will" is an illusion. Even accounting for "quantum fuzziness" there is good reason to suggest that if Person A and Person B share the exact same experience, biology and circumstance at any point requiring a geniune choice, they will make the same decision everytime. But that is untested and perhaps untestable. So all I am saying is that at the very least, the range of real or imagined choices is not at all the same for everyone at any given decision point.

          That has implications for notions of distributive justice. When you want to feel comfy cozy in you own wealth by clinging to the self-flattering notions that everything and anything that comes your way is solely based on "merit' and therefore you don't have to care about the bad things that happen to other members of your society because one way or another it must be their "fault".

          It must be confusing in an all or nothing Faux world of politics, since I don't beleive in any all or nothing ideology. I don't beleive in Ayn Rand's Utopia anymore than Marx's or any Utopia of any kind. It means that any question of taxation and economic redistribution is not automatically and forever robbery and a crime against humanity.

          It doesn't mean all bets are off and people are to be treated as part of the Borg collective because in their day to day lives people experience life as an individual experience. Also it is clear that systems of incentives and penalties change behavior.


          This thread is about trampling the Freedom of Speech, another item on the Progressive agenda that shows the all-out effort to crush everyone you don't approve of, but not you people are going beyond that to attack what's in people's minds.
          Oh yeah, well, welcome to the Progressive education system, eh?
          Again I understand that this is very confusing for a Faux viewer who can't think beyond labels, but I strongly agree with free speech and based on what I said, you have no reason to suppose otherwise.


          BTW- there is NOT SUCH THING as unrestrained Capitalism. Businesses are fleeing the nation that most heavily taxed them; the USA.
          I agree there is no such thing as unrestrained capitalism except perhaps in certain sectors and not for long.

          So all those manufacturing jobs would fly back from China and the rest of Asia only if taxes were lowered? To what? What would be the rate of taxation that would allow western workers to compete with the Chinese?


          And the only point is; if people like you are the future of Humanity, I want no part of it.

          Especially not when people like you view 90% of the human race as being inferior to you because they have some form of spiritual beliefs.
          Once again, I get the feeling you having this argument with a progressive demon created in your head since you clearly don't know what I actually think.

          Comment


          • #65
            Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
            The big problem I have with that whole scheme of things is that government often makes complex rules that the rich and particularly the filthy rich can use to their benefit..
            There is no "government". The "government" of every country, every state, every big city, is run by the rich and powerful. And naturally laws and policies tend to favor the rich and powerful. It's the main source of growing inequality - decades of tax policies even slightly tilted toward the "haves" end up putting most of the wealth in a few hands. The well off find it a lot easier to save money than poor people.

            Comment


            • #66
              Originally posted by Crash View Post
              The point went completely over your head.

              People working 60+ hours a week are not lazy like FoxNews says...

              Comment


              • #67
                Originally posted by lynelhutz View Post
                A very good detailed and compellling argument could be made and has been made that what we call "free will" is an illusion. Even accounting for "quantum fuzziness" there is good reason to suggest that if Person A and Person B share the exact same experience, biology and circumstance at any point requiring a geniune choice, they will make the same decision everytime. But that is untested and perhaps untestable. So all I am saying is that at the very least, the range of real or imagined choices is not at all the same for everyone at any given decision point.

                That has implications for notions of distributive justice. When you want to feel comfy cozy in you own wealth by clinging to the self-flattering notions that everything and anything that comes your way is solely based on "merit' and therefore you don't have to care about the bad things that happen to other members of your society because one way or another it must be their "fault".

                It must be confusing in an all or nothing Faux world of politics, since I don't beleive in any all or nothing ideology. I don't beleive in Ayn Rand's Utopia anymore than Marx's or any Utopia of any kind. It means that any question of taxation and economic redistribution is not automatically and forever robbery and a crime against humanity.

                It doesn't mean all bets are off and people are to be treated as part of the Borg collective because in their day to day lives people experience life as an individual experience. Also it is clear that systems of incentives and penalties change behavior.




                Again I understand that this is very confusing for a Faux viewer who can't think beyond labels, but I strongly agree with free speech and based on what I said, you have no reason to suppose otherwise.




                I agree there is no such thing as unrestrained capitalism except perhaps in certain sectors and not for long.

                So all those manufacturing jobs would fly back from China and the rest of Asia only if taxes were lowered? To what? What would be the rate of taxation that would allow western workers to compete with the Chinese?




                Once again, I get the feeling you having this argument with a progressive demon created in your head since you clearly don't know what I actually think.
                Still insulting others because of your bigotry towards a different news source?

                What does that make you, I wonder? Oh, right...one of Obama's League of Sycophants and an anti-American. That was easy...


                Your arguments do fine up until your bigotry takes over your mental processes and then ...






                Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

                Comment


                • #68
                  Originally posted by lynelhutz View Post
                  A very good detailed and compellling argument could be made and has been made that what we call "free will" is an illusion. Even accounting for "quantum fuzziness" there is good reason to suggest that if Person A and Person B share the exact same experience, biology and circumstance at any point requiring a geniune choice, they will make the same decision everytime. But that is untested and perhaps untestable. So all I am saying is that at the very least, the range of real or imagined choices is not at all the same for everyone at any given decision point.
                  That is entirely different from what "free choice is limited" sounds like at first call, and in fact this is a very different subject.

                  We are now talking about individuality, something I am very much in favor of, said Captain Obvious... but I feel the need to repeat it since repletion is now the hallmark of all political discourse.

                  And since Progressivism is opposed to it in practice if not in stated principle, I should explain why its a GOOD thing;
                  Fellow A may have a set of responses that indicate there is not flood coming and goes about his daily business as normal. Fellow B, perhaps a dunderhead in most instances, has an inspiration this time and harvests his crops just in time to save enough food for his part of the village to get by for a while.

                  Diversity of thought and opinion is the most important kind of diversity, it is the one that matters most, and it is the one under most serious attack in this day & age thanks mainly to the Progressives.
                  As you illustrated;


                  Originally posted by lynelhutz View Post
                  That has implications for notions of distributive justice. When you want to feel comfy cozy in you own wealth by clinging to the self-flattering notions that everything and anything that comes your way is solely based on "merit' and therefore you don't have to care about the bad things that happen to other members of your society because one way or another it must be their "fault".
                  The idea that you CAN improve your situation is far more helpful to the unfortunate that the depressing and demoralizing notion that its all somebody else's fault, they never had a chance, and they may as well just sit back and wait for the Govt to take care of them ... or to help the Govt take things away from those who were productive enough to earn them for themselves.


                  Originally posted by lynelhutz View Post
                  It must be confusing in an all or nothing Faux world of politics, since I don't beleive in any all or nothing ideology. I don't beleive in Ayn Rand's Utopia anymore than Marx's or any Utopia of any kind. It means that any question of taxation and economic redistribution is not automatically and forever robbery and a crime against humanity.
                  1- as I keep saying here, I have not watched "Faux" or any other TV in years.

                  2- Good, they were both extreme cases... which makes Rand's startlingly accurate predictions about everything going on today all the more disturbing.
                  Or, they should be, unless any and all thought devoted to them is solely aimed and shooting them down for Political reasons.

                  3- Now that the rate of taxation is at historic highs (there are other taxes besides Income tax, you know, its a small part of a big pie) the question becomes "How much is enough?".
                  And my question to you is; why is the Left's answer to every conceivable problem always the same; "Give us more of your money!!!" ?

                  Originally posted by lynelhutz View Post
                  It doesn't mean all bets are off and people are to be treated as part of the Borg collective because in their day to day lives people experience life as an individual experience. Also it is clear that systems of incentives and penalties change behavior.
                  I'm good with that.

                  Originally posted by lynelhutz View Post
                  I understand that this is very confusing for a Faux viewer who can't think beyond labels, but I strongly agree with free speech and based on what I said, you have no reason to suppose otherwise.
                  and here we go again....

                  Ah, but I do have serious doubts. I have doubts about everyone that blamed Pam Gellar for the Texas shoot-out, about anyone that just goes on and on and on and on about ONE news channel among many on a never-ending rant against the only news source that isn't controlled by Democrats.
                  It throws your views on competition and free speech into serious doubt.

                  And btw.... there IS the whole OP-thing, you know.

                  Originally posted by lynelhutz View Post
                  I agree there is no such thing as unrestrained capitalism except perhaps in certain sectors and not for long.
                  Then why do you bring it up?

                  Originally posted by lynelhutz View Post
                  So all those manufacturing jobs would fly back from China and the rest of Asia only if taxes were lowered? To what? What would be the rate of taxation that would allow western workers to compete with the Chinese?
                  "Fly" back? Heh, no, forget them, what's gone is gone and has been destroyed forever by misguided attempts to manipulate people and their wealth.
                  What you can do is get out of the way, stop hampering the ability of people to crate new sources of wealth (they do exist) and just let them DO something.
                  You have to allow for some inequality for this to happen. Some people fall behind, some go bust, and some shine like the sun. And the funny thing is, when there is real freedom, they change places with amazing frequency.
                  Where there is not, they are cemented in place for generations... a was the case in Feudal Europe, old China, and modern Cuba.

                  I don't believe it will, or can, happen anymore. The world is ruled by control-freaks that just clamp down harder with ever failure of their well-laid plans. They are too proud and stupid to know what else to do. Like the Czarist aristocracy, they will tighten their grip until the bubble bursts and is all just slips away.

                  Originally posted by lynelhutz View Post
                  Once again, I get the feeling you having this argument with a progressive demon created in your head since you clearly don't know what I actually think.
                  Well, it would be easier if you were honest enough to post what you actually think or believe, instead of being so political and masking what you want to say with all the PC phony baloney.
                  I'm being straight up, and it does bring on the gratuitous insults like the rain, but at least you know where I am coming from.
                  Last edited by The Exorcist; 26 May 15, 16:12.
                  "Why is the Rum gone?"

                  -Captain Jack

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                    Wow...that was fast. Everybody talks about how quickly Godwin's Law pops up in forum discussions, but Foxophobia is a whole lot faster and more dependable.

                    For the record, lynelhutz, your personal news source is no better than anyone else's, so that makes you part of the problem and not part of any imagined "solution".

                    Obam has yet to prove that anything Fox has reported about him is untrue, so there goes the veracity of your personal little god. Politicans are public figures - they do not get to whine and snivel about the news that is printed about them, especially not this POS president who personally smeared Palin and her dauughter and encouraged Democratic garbage brains like Letterman to call them ******.

                    If Obama is your idol, you need to get a life before it's too late.
                    There you go Mountain Man . At least this time I get the feeling you read my post before responding to it.

                    Since Faux and Obama's criticism of Faux is the very point of this thread it is not Fauxophobia to talk about it and point out it is a news organization with an open agenda.

                    But I'm curious since you seem better informed than I am on my views where did I say anywhere in any thread anything close praising Obama as not merely Godlike but simply a great or better than average President?

                    What does bother me is binary partisan or ideological thinking. Obama is the target of irrational fear, lazy labeling in lieu of thought and in the case of Faux, an open campaign to undermine everything he does and says. Pointing that out doesn't make Obama great, invalidate legitimate criticism or mean that everything said by him or his supporters is automatically credible.

                    Again you seem to know better about what I think, but I was under the impression that Obama was mediocre as a President. Not the best but could have been worse.

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Originally posted by lynelhutz View Post
                      ....
                      Since Faux and Obama's criticism of Faux is the very point of this thread it is not Fauxophobia to talk about it and point out it is a news organization with an open agenda.

                      ...
                      Fox/Fox News is an obsession among the "libtards", but the point/focus of the OP and this thread isn't Fox, rather the desire by POTUS and fellow "alinskys" to control speech and restrain/curtail the First Amendment.

                      Clueless as ever ...
                      TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Originally posted by G David Bock View Post
                        Fox/Fox News is an obsession among the "libtards", but the point/focus of the OP and this thread isn't Fox, rather the desire by POTUS and fellow "alinskys" to control speech and restrain/curtail the First Amendment.

                        Clueless as ever ...
                        As blindly ideological and devoid of self-awareness as ever.

                        The OP was a quote from a commentary on Faux about Obama talking about Faux and that is all.

                        It begins with

                        The president of these United States is not too happy with your friendly neighborhood columnist. President Obama took me and my Fox News colleagues to the woodshed -- during a speech at Georgetown University.
                        And goes on to bravely rail against an non-existent infringement of its First Amendment right apparently interpreted as "You have the right to speak BS and also the right not to be criticized for it". Poor noble courageous Faux in it's epic struggle for truthiness.

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Originally posted by lynelhutz View Post
                          As blindly ideological and devoid of self-awareness as ever.

                          The OP was a quote from a commentary on Faux about Obama talking about Faux and that is all.


                          And goes on to bravely rail against an non-existent infringement of its First Amendment right apparently interpreted as "You have the right to speak BS and also the right not to be criticized for it". Poor noble courageous Faux in it's epic struggle for truthiness.
                          Actually, while the OP doesn't do a good job of it, Obama clearly has issues with FOX News and readily does infringe on their First Amendment rights when and where he can.

                          https://www.judicialwatch.org/press-...-news-channel/

                          Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, announced today that it has uncovered documents from the Obama Department of Treasury showing that the Obama administration, contrary to its repeated denials, attempted to exclude the Fox News Channel (FNC) from a round of interviews with Treasury’s “Executive Pay Czar” Kenneth Feinberg. The documents, which include email exchanges within the Department of the Treasury and between Treasury and White House staff, also provide colorful evidence of an anti-Fox News bias within the Obama White House.
                          http://newsbusters.org/blogs/jeff-po...ite-house-pool

                          The press pool is comprised of the five major TV news organizations - CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS and Fox News. However, according to Baier, the other members declined to participate unless Fox News was included. "When they put out that message, they specified that all members of the pool were welcome except Fox News," Baier said. "Well the other members of the TV pool said, ‘Well we're not going to do the interview unless Fox News is included."
                          http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/23/us...3fox.html?_r=0

                          Even the NY Times admits the administration is doing it...

                          Late last month, the senior White House adviser David Axelrod and Roger Ailes, chairman and chief executive of Fox News, met in an empty Palm steakhouse before it opened for the day, neutral ground secured for a secret tête-à-tête...

                          ...What both men took to be the start of a frank but productive dialogue proved, in retrospect, more akin to the round of pre-Pearl Harbor peace talks between the United States and Japan.
                          The little dictator currently in the White House makes Nixon look like a squeaky clean nice guy when it comes to handling "enemies."

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Originally posted by lynelhutz View Post
                            As blindly ideological and devoid of self-awareness as ever.

                            The OP was a quote from a commentary on Faux about Obama talking about Faux and that is all.

                            It begins with



                            And goes on to bravely rail against an non-existent infringement of its First Amendment right apparently interpreted as "You have the right to speak BS and also the right not to be criticized for it". Poor noble courageous Faux in it's epic struggle for truthiness.
                            Try this part of the OP, comrade ...


                            He went on to say that he wants to change how America’s journalists do their jobs.

                            “[W]e’re going to have to change how our body politic thinks, which means we’re going to have to change how the media reports on these issues,” the president said.


                            Sounds non-Fox specific to me.
                            TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Originally posted by The Exorcist View Post



                              Well, it would be easier if you were honest enough to post what you actually think or believe, instead of being so political and masking what you want to say with all the PC phony baloney.
                              I'm being straight up, and it does bring on the gratuitous insults like the rain, but at least you know where I am coming from.

                              Gratuitous insults and labeling aside, I don't fit into any political category certainly not in the all or nothing US divide.

                              It will shock and horrify you to know that I could best be described as a recovering Libertarian but now devoutly non-partisan and against all the secular political religions. In a democracy political freedoms and process matter more than anything else. I no longer believe in the hidden and unproven assumptions of free market ideologues. An example of those articles of faith is in your response where you stated that if only taxes were lowered and government gets out of the way, a miracle wealth producing industry will arise from the ashes of manufacturing and it is not simply a matter of importing third world standards.

                              Dramatic differences in wealth produce political instability as does the extreme boom bust cycles. However, bottom line market realities of supply v. demand express a kind of reality that governments ignore at their hazard. On the other hand, in the same way that evolutionary success does not equate to moral terms like good or best or deserving, much can be said of the rewards and wealth accumulated in the marketplace.

                              In short, in assessing issues or taxation or redistribution I'm primarily interested in practicalities. In other words, what policy will produce sustainable economic growth and safe and stable society. In general I think those policies would place a premium on economic freedom, but not as a dogmatic virtue for its own sake.

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Originally posted by G David Bock View Post
                                Try this part of the OP, comrade ...


                                He went on to say that he wants to change how America’s journalists do their jobs.

                                “[W]e’re going to have to change how our body politic thinks, which means we’re going to have to change how the media reports on these issues,” the president said.


                                Sounds non-Fox specific to me.
                                Sounds to me like Obama wants total control over the press like some tin pot dictator would do in South America or elsewhere.

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X