This is pretty good, and somewhat related.
Free speech is towards the middle/end.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KjSjpNe1-Vc
Free speech is towards the middle/end.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KjSjpNe1-Vc
The Obama war against Fox News
- Thread starter xMurphyx
- Start date
-
Two Factor Authentication is now available on BeyondUnreal Forums. To configure it, visit your Profile and look for the "Two Step Verification" option on the left side. We can send codes via email (may be slower) or you can set up any TOTP Authenticator app on your phone (Authy, Google Authenticator, etc) to deliver codes. It is highly recommended that you configure this to keep your account safe.
yes, and unconstitutionally too, mind you. so that is a problem.
very reassuring
yea, but marx contradicts most of their philosophies and his have shown to be very dangerous in practice.
and many forget that they are unconstitutional and screw up how our country works. like them or not, they aren't compatible. you can't force gm parts into a subaru, regardless which brand you prefer.
yes, the workers take the business from the "bourgeois". brilliant stuff. gg modern unions (with outdated purpose) that have killed our car industry and public school system. although, it had good intent, isn't it's actual practice just awesome!?
yes, but when you try to implement the bad aspects, it's a problem....
here's a few. we can go into others or more detail of these...
Mark Lloyd (Diversity Czar of FCC): praises Chavez for controlling the media, new type of "fairness doctrine",
Van Jones: self avowed commie
Anitta Dunn: citing mao as a philosophical guide, attacking FNC
other **** heads...
robert reich: senior citizens "too expensive...so we're going to let you die." "
harold koh: sharia law in the US and transnationalist
john holdren (science czar): forced abortions and mass sterilization
cass sunstein (regulatory czar): hunting should be banned, animals rights to sue people, "fairness doctrine" for the internet.
Rev. Wright...
Bill Ayres...
and himself... Obama: redistribution of wealth, polarizer/divide and conquer/Alinski follower, etc...
"Judge me by the people who surround me" - Obama
^^ see Harold Koh
Who does this exactly?
Why should you have access to a network you're not paying to use again? It is nothing short of taking away private property. It would also end the building of towers and any sort of advancement of the network as the return on the investment would be zero. The government would have to force companies to expand on the networks if this happens.
The p2p situation happened due to fear of lawsuits. Which btw did happen. The other stuff I never heard of.
This happens..yes?
Why would I read something like that again? The FCC just came up with the new net neutrality guideline yesterday ffs.
=/=?
Last edited:
Saying that there's some sort of full blown communist regime takeover is of course taking things overboard. That does not mean that people can't have valid concerns about the people Obama is choosing to be associated with. I really don't see how anybody can't see it. I know that this sort of thing happens in politics, but not on such an extreme scale. It's not just that he was loosely associated with one or two guys that were questionable. This is something that consistently happens over and over again.
I'm not saying that all his picks are bad. Keeping Ben Bernanke was possibly one of the best decisions he could make, and his supreme court pick was pretty decent considering what he could have tried to put in there. However, you simply can't look at some of these other picks and not say that there's not something going in here. If anything it shows that the far left in this country is far more extreme and powerful than anybody in the Democratic party wants to admit.
I can't believe I am even going to dignify your ridiculous excuse for an intelligible response with further reply, but here goes...
what kind of a point is that?
that's not a point at all.
Marx was not agreeing with them, of course he would contradict their philosophies. they are entirely different schools of thought. they're not supposed to be on the same page.
there's no divine law that says you can't combine different theories of economics into the same system. we have been doing it in this country since the beginning. we are not 100% capitalist. your argument was flawed before it began.
it's more than possible to work socialist values into a democratic free market without disrupting either of those principles. it has been done with success all over Europe where governments maintain socialist agendas over certain aspects of the market while letting the majority work itself out through private sector capitalism.
it's capitalism that has given rise to modern unions.
it's capitalism that has caused our auto industry to buckle and fall at the knees.
the practice of trying to save the industry by buying up pieces of it is socialist in ideal, true. but it never would have happened in the first place if capitalism had not failed in its blind, greed-driven run on the market place. bad bets, poor planning, unrealistic assumptions about human nature; products of capitalism running unchecked.
http://thinkprogress.org/2009/08/22/mark-lloyd
your arguments are so ambiguous and unreasonable.
what do you even mean when you say "commie" ? you don't even know, do you?
Van Jones is actually a self-avowed environmentalist and human rights activist who happens to share some socialist ideas. he's worked for civil rights as an attorney for NGO's in California and founded an African American advocacy group that preaches non-violence.
ohhhhhhhhhhh!
yup!
sounds just like a scary, dirty communist to me!
boy howdy.
She has been criticized for stating that Mao was one of her favorite political philosophers. In response to the criticism, Dunn said ""The use of the phrase 'favorite political philosophers' was intended as irony..." She also stated that "the Mao quote is one I picked up from the late Republican strategist Lee Atwater."[12]
you have fully bought into GOP smear tactics without doing any fact or simple logic checking on your own. you went from "expensive" to "let you die" which is falsely cropping up someone else's words so that they fit your stupid arugment.
when Reich made that remark, he was commenting hypothetically on the situation that America is going to face in time under mounting medical costs if changes are not made sooner. the quote is:
[FONT=times new roman,times]"We're going to have to, if you're very old, we're not going to give you all that technology and all those drugs for the last couple of years of your life to keep you maybe going for another couple of months. It's too expensive...so we're going to let you die."[/FONT]
he's not saying this is a position he wants to take.
he's challenging people to consider the inevitable problems that exist within our current system of medical coverage. in short, he was simply attesting to the fact that under current methods, we won't be able to keep people plugged in like a vegetables just to squeeze a couple more months of life out of them.
Conservative television and radio commentator Glenn Beck, speaking on his Fox News show, said, "Once we sign our rights over to international law, the Constitution is officially dead."[21]Law professors Duncan Hollis and Chris Borgen refute Beck's assertion: "Neither Koh nor any serious American lawyer disputes the Constitution's supremacy within the U.S. legal system. What Koh has advocated - along with many others - is the educational value of other countries' experiences in interpreting our Constitution and statutes."[32]
hm.......... Glenn Beck leading the charge again?
gee. I see a pattern forming here.
AGAIN, Holdren was merely discussing hypothetical consequences to problems we will be facing in the not too distant future.
In 1977, Paul R. Ehrlich, Anne H. Ehrlich, and Holdren co-authored the textbook Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment; they discussed the possible role of a wide variety of solutions to overpopulation, from voluntary family planning to enforced population controls, including forced sterilization for women after they gave birth to a designated number of children, and recommended "the use of milder methods of influencing family size preferences" such as access to birth control and abortion.[21][10]
he's talking (hypothetically) about a potentially extreme circumstance, not a reality that is going to kick in tomorrow.
he IS NOT advoating that we begin "forced abortions" and "mass sterilization" anytime soon, or necessarily ever. that's not his goal as co-chair of PECAST.
and, like I keep having to remind you of, they're just ideas.
the people who worked against Sunstein because of these views were defeated in vote for cloture of 63-35. his nomination then passed congress easily. I guess they weren't nearly as scared of him as you are...
also, a polarizer/divider doesn't win the presidential nomination in a landslide. from what I can tell, it's the hardline Rightwinger's in this country today that provide the most divisive and polarizing rhetoric.
you'll probably have something short, sweet, and unconscionably silly to say in reply to all of this. and it probably won't make any more sense than your previous attempt at a reponse. but I'm probably not going to continue the discussion until someone can bring up some real, valid points for contention.
because all I get from you and Larkin are soundbytes and repitions of the crap that is slung around in conservative media. I don't usually drag myself down to this level but it's a boring afternoon and football doesn't start for another 2 hours.
I'd like to see you tell that to a veteran or person on medicare or anyone on capitol hill who uses the current "government option."
so you believe that everyone who studies Marx absolutely wants to stage a violent revolution and make the country communist?
what kind of a point is that?
that's not a point at all.
Marx was not agreeing with them, of course he would contradict their philosophies. they are entirely different schools of thought. they're not supposed to be on the same page.
so the United Kingdom, Netherlands and Canada (to name a few) are dangerous?
congratulations on displaying more of your ignorance for public record.
there's no divine law that says you can't combine different theories of economics into the same system. we have been doing it in this country since the beginning. we are not 100% capitalist. your argument was flawed before it began.
it's more than possible to work socialist values into a democratic free market without disrupting either of those principles. it has been done with success all over Europe where governments maintain socialist agendas over certain aspects of the market while letting the majority work itself out through private sector capitalism.
I'm sorry but you clearly have no idea what you're saying.
it's capitalism that has given rise to modern unions.
it's capitalism that has caused our auto industry to buckle and fall at the knees.
the practice of trying to save the industry by buying up pieces of it is socialist in ideal, true. but it never would have happened in the first place if capitalism had not failed in its blind, greed-driven run on the market place. bad bets, poor planning, unrealistic assumptions about human nature; products of capitalism running unchecked.
again: just because you have been led to believe that all socialism is evil, doesn't make it so.
http://thinkprogress.org/2009/08/22/mark-lloyd
there you go again.
your arguments are so ambiguous and unreasonable.
what do you even mean when you say "commie" ? you don't even know, do you?
Van Jones is actually a self-avowed environmentalist and human rights activist who happens to share some socialist ideas. he's worked for civil rights as an attorney for NGO's in California and founded an African American advocacy group that preaches non-violence.
ohhhhhhhhhhh!
yup!
sounds just like a scary, dirty communist to me!
boy howdy.
She has been criticized for stating that Mao was one of her favorite political philosophers. In response to the criticism, Dunn said ""The use of the phrase 'favorite political philosophers' was intended as irony..." She also stated that "the Mao quote is one I picked up from the late Republican strategist Lee Atwater."[12]
again, you ignorance precedes you.
you have fully bought into GOP smear tactics without doing any fact or simple logic checking on your own. you went from "expensive" to "let you die" which is falsely cropping up someone else's words so that they fit your stupid arugment.
when Reich made that remark, he was commenting hypothetically on the situation that America is going to face in time under mounting medical costs if changes are not made sooner. the quote is:
[FONT=times new roman,times]"We're going to have to, if you're very old, we're not going to give you all that technology and all those drugs for the last couple of years of your life to keep you maybe going for another couple of months. It's too expensive...so we're going to let you die."[/FONT]
he's not saying this is a position he wants to take.
he's challenging people to consider the inevitable problems that exist within our current system of medical coverage. in short, he was simply attesting to the fact that under current methods, we won't be able to keep people plugged in like a vegetables just to squeeze a couple more months of life out of them.
Conservative television and radio commentator Glenn Beck, speaking on his Fox News show, said, "Once we sign our rights over to international law, the Constitution is officially dead."[21]Law professors Duncan Hollis and Chris Borgen refute Beck's assertion: "Neither Koh nor any serious American lawyer disputes the Constitution's supremacy within the U.S. legal system. What Koh has advocated - along with many others - is the educational value of other countries' experiences in interpreting our Constitution and statutes."[32]
hm.......... Glenn Beck leading the charge again?
gee. I see a pattern forming here.
and here's more of the pattern: you seem to believe that every single theory or thought that these guys put forward must be absolutely true and that they are actively trying to work towards it in some sick or cruel way.
AGAIN, Holdren was merely discussing hypothetical consequences to problems we will be facing in the not too distant future.
In 1977, Paul R. Ehrlich, Anne H. Ehrlich, and Holdren co-authored the textbook Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment; they discussed the possible role of a wide variety of solutions to overpopulation, from voluntary family planning to enforced population controls, including forced sterilization for women after they gave birth to a designated number of children, and recommended "the use of milder methods of influencing family size preferences" such as access to birth control and abortion.[21][10]
he's talking (hypothetically) about a potentially extreme circumstance, not a reality that is going to kick in tomorrow.
he IS NOT advoating that we begin "forced abortions" and "mass sterilization" anytime soon, or necessarily ever. that's not his goal as co-chair of PECAST.
these are nothing more than the typical myths, exaggerations, and misinterpreations (either honestly or deliberately) of what Sunstein actually advocates by people who are scared of his otherwise harmless ideas.
and, like I keep having to remind you of, they're just ideas.
the people who worked against Sunstein because of these views were defeated in vote for cloture of 63-35. his nomination then passed congress easily. I guess they weren't nearly as scared of him as you are...
brilliant Kiff, just brilliant.
last time I checked, my wealth had not been redistributed.
also, a polarizer/divider doesn't win the presidential nomination in a landslide. from what I can tell, it's the hardline Rightwinger's in this country today that provide the most divisive and polarizing rhetoric.
you'll probably have something short, sweet, and unconscionably silly to say in reply to all of this. and it probably won't make any more sense than your previous attempt at a reponse. but I'm probably not going to continue the discussion until someone can bring up some real, valid points for contention.
because all I get from you and Larkin are soundbytes and repitions of the crap that is slung around in conservative media. I don't usually drag myself down to this level but it's a boring afternoon and football doesn't start for another 2 hours.
Last edited:
I agree.
but the concerns being expressed are not valid.
there's nothing else that can be said about it. callously calling someone a "commie" is not a logical or sound concern. this is not 1950.
were you born yesterday?
take a class on the American Presidency if you want to hear about some extreme cases of partisanship in this country's past. what's going on right now is nowhere near "extreme."
"this is something" ?
what is "something" ?
you're feeding into the ambiguous scare-tactic arguments again.
they keep talking about something is happening or something is coming.
Obama made political associations that some people question.
they happen to share socialist philosophies and because people have been spoon-fed so much crap about communism and the Red Scare they can't look reasonably at what socialism means. and because of this, they can't look past the fact that political associations do not necessarily say much (if anything) about a person's inner belief system.
yes, yes I can simply look at those picks and say nothing else is going on.
if you have the right to be all paranoid, then I have the right to behave in the opposite fashion.
there you again.
"extreme" and "powerful."
words that opponents of the Bush administration often used.
define "extreme."
taking over the country slowly in bits and pieces until one day we wake up and it's USSR?
gimme a break.
I was right.
Last edited:
I can't believe I am even going to dignify your ridiculous excuse for an intelligible response with further reply, but here goes...
what kind of a point is that?
that's not a point at all.
congratulations on displaying more of your ignorance for public record.
your argument was flawed before it began.
I'm sorry but you clearly have no idea what you're saying.
your arguments are so ambiguous and unreasonable.
what do you even mean when you say "commie" ? you don't even know, do you?
ohhhhhhhhhhh!
yup!
sounds just like a scary, dirty communist to me!
boy howdy.
again, you ignorance precedes you.
you have fully bought into GOP smear tactics without doing any fact or simple logic checking on your own. you went from "expensive" to "let you die" which is falsely cropping up someone else's words so that they fit your stupid arugment.
brilliant Kiff, just brilliant.
you'll probably have something short, sweet, and unconscionably silly to say in reply to all of this. and it probably won't make any more sense than your previous attempt at a reponse.
but I'm probably not going to continue the discussion until someone can bring up some real, valid points for contention.
I don't usually drag myself down to this level but it's a boring afternoon and football doesn't start for another 2 hours.
wow, just wow... I'll respond to the little bit that you actually cared to discuss later tonight...
oh I can't wait Kiff.
I'm going to come home early from the game tonight just so I can check out your stellar response.
I'm certain it will be littered with glistening gemstones of intellectually impenetrable debate radiating a brilliance of reasoned logic the likes of which your previous replies have never seen.
I'm going to come home early from the game tonight just so I can check out your stellar response.
I'm certain it will be littered with glistening gemstones of intellectually impenetrable debate radiating a brilliance of reasoned logic the likes of which your previous replies have never seen.
Why is that not a logical or sound concern? The fact that it doesn't concern you doesn't mean anything. People see cabinet members being appointed whose ideologies indicate they want to take this country in a direction that those people don't want it to go in. Why should that not be a concern for them?
ding ding ding!
that's a valid concern.
I know you can see the difference between this argument:
"I'm concerned that moving in this direction will burden our bottom line in terms of taxes/the budget/trade liabilities/etc."
and this argument:
"he's a commie!"
"he wants to kill my grandpa!"
"he wants to turn us into Cuba!"
"he wants to let dogs sue humans!"
"he wants to have all people sterilized and force abortions!"
now, we should next move on to talk about the specific issue areas in which you feel there is a problem given those ideologies. but only if we are willing to discuss tangible critiques, not get caught up in name-calling or defining another ideology as evil for the country just because you don't believe in its methods.
Last edited:
Some wall street journal articles that I feel worthwhile to link to..
Someones elses mess
Rules for Presidents
The Chicago way
and jacks since when did Obama win in a landslide again?
Someones elses mess
Rules for Presidents
The Chicago way
and jacks since when did Obama win in a landslide again?
Last edited:
Well, I think it's fair to say that anyone who believes that our country should stick to the basic principles it was founded on would see a problem with a person who is a communist being appointed to lead certain aspects of our government, and thus society. So in that way, I don't see anything wrong with people being worried about that aspect of it. Of course there are the fanatical psychotic people, but I think most Americans who are concerned about it are concerned about the diametric opposition of the two ideologies (in general).
Yes, but again this is not the argument that we are making. I'm simply saying that I think his choices are bad. I think that the fact that so many have had to resign is ample proof of that. Many of these people are simply far too extreme in their ideologies for comfort, and it simply disturbs me that these are the kind of people that Obama would pick.
Give me a break. I don't have the time nor the inclination to lay out in detail every tiny little political thing that happens. I think it's more than enough to say that a reasonable number of people out there disapprove of some of Obama's appointments, and that these occurrences have stirred up numerous controversies and even resulted in people having to resign. That's great if you want to try and mire yourself and everyone else in frivolous details, but I'm just not interested. You know full well what occurrences "something" refers to in my original post. I really don't think we should have to spell it out for you.
First off, vets are taken care of by the military which is constitutional.
Medicare is a prime example of the problem. Once you create these programs and people plan their lives and finances around them, they become dependent on them, you can't just dump it when the costs go out of control... and also because it's going broke, costing 10 times(?) what it was projected to cost.
No, but what if they want to fundamentally change our form of government/society? No cause for concern? I suppose not if you don't like our country.
USSR, Venezuela, Cuba, et al.
Umm, no... individualism vs. collectivism. Our constitution was based on individualism and federalism. There's a fundamental difference with that and a powerful, centralized government and collectivism.
There is a reason we've been a superpower for so long...
wtf, are you serious? try cafe standards and unions overpaying the workers and giving them early, over-paid retirement packages... sucking their profits dry. I can't believe you even want to make that argument.
Now, the czars. You asked for a list of the "whole line" and I gave you a handful with a brief description of each. You say I'm just eating up the right wing crap, while you post the weak excuses from the left.
The problem here is that, from the little we know of them, many of them have questionable backgrounds, beliefs and statements made that really should be examined (to say the least), yet they have a lot of influence in the WH's policies and all sorts of federal regulations. Have you noticed how fast this administration has been trying to go? Do you, or anyone, really know how much they're doing that we never even see? How many of these "questionable" characters are in there running full speed ahead? Transparency? hah!
Then you're obviously not making very much money. Once you break the $25k/yr (??) barrier, don't get a tax refund, you'll start to understand.
What do you call the healthcare bill that will raise taxes on most of the middle class, the rich, much of the medical industry and attempts to insure others?
"individual salvation depends on our collective salvation" - Obama 5/08
"..American Dream is and how fragile it can be when we fail to live up to our collective responsibilities.." - Obama 2/09
"...when you spread the wealth around it's good for everybody" - Obama '08
"But, the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society. To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution" - Obama 2001
"...the Constitution allows for many things, but what it does not allow is the most revealing. The so-called Founders did not allow for economic freedom. While political freedom is supposedly a cornerstone of the document, the distribution of wealth is not even mentioned. While many believed that the new Constitution gave them liberty, it instead fitted them with the shackles of hypocrisy." - Obama "Aristocracy Reborn"
jeez, what an ass: "so-called Founders"
Landslide? ... I'm talking about AFTER he was elected. The right wing is polarizing the country? Good lord...
Last edited:
Capitalism unchecked? Is there such a thing? If so, there is also socialism unchecked, which could be touted by programs such as, wait for it............................................................................................................................................. Social Security, other welfare programs, public schools. Basically any programs where a person is not necessarily required to contribute but may reap the benefits of. But I digress that you could do further and make the same claim about our roads and highways, national parks, etc.
Back to my question, capitalism isn't what has gone unchecked. Greed is what went unchecked. You know, a major influence in the banking and housing "scandal" was Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, to include their Government overseers and regulation (or lack thereof). This had little to do with supply and demand; it had everything to do with personal greed on the parts of the bankers, the legislators, the homeowners, to name just the major players. There are so many facets to this issue that blaming capitalism is a copout, because there was a lot of socialism built into that equation as well.
Back to my question, capitalism isn't what has gone unchecked. Greed is what went unchecked. You know, a major influence in the banking and housing "scandal" was Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, to include their Government overseers and regulation (or lack thereof). This had little to do with supply and demand; it had everything to do with personal greed on the parts of the bankers, the legislators, the homeowners, to name just the major players. There are so many facets to this issue that blaming capitalism is a copout, because there was a lot of socialism built into that equation as well.
You, my friend, don't seem to have any idea what you're talking about. Capitalism and greed go, unfortunately, hand in hand. Without a crapton of checks, capitalism leads to crap piles like that and monopolies like Standard Oil.
Wait, are you really validating their inane question? It is most certainly my belief that organizations that pose such obviously ignorant and ideologically slanted statements should not be regarded as serious. The commerce clause covers health care reform-- and it is the same thing that covers medicare/medicaid. To ask such a question you either have to be an idiot or are specifically ignoring the numerous cases cementing the commerce clause in an attempt to provoke someone.
Man, you know what's terrible? Someone that advocates for a rise in the standard of living of the lower classes. What a terrible thought. You mean that he advocates people banding together to fight CEO pay being hundreds of times what other workers in the company are making and push for reasonable compensation? Call the Pinkertons!
I mean, seriously, we have an upper class this is miles above our lower classes and all of this within the same company. It's fairly obvious by now that a great many of these CEOs and managers don't earn their spots and are instead simply milking the system for what its worth.
Just a comment about unions being the fall of the auto industry: That is the biggest piece of worthlessness I have ever heard. The reason for the US auto industry failing is because it is backwards, poorly managed and has been pushing a series of worse and worse cars.
Companies like Toyota and Honda have been forced through tariffs/subsidies to build their cars in the United States while American car makers are shipping their factories out to Mexico. They pay higher prices, still deal with unions and yet are making great money. This is an issue of idiots in charge.
Finally, I'm honestly going to just ignore anything you say Kiff. You used to actually have logical arguments, but seriously look at the things you've been posting in here. Jacks posted a worthy look at a few countries that have implemented socialist programs and you spouted a lot of bullcrap which equate the USSR with all communism and ignores other successful implementations of communism/socialism today in countries that have higher standards of living, better health, less unemployment and happier people than in the US. (places like Denmark, Austria, Switzerland, Sweden, Canada, Australia, etc., etc., etc.) and you spouted off a bunch of rhetoric spawned by (ding ding) Glenn Beck and the internet that of course is wrong and proven so, but what does it matter, you're fighting against TYRANNY!
Honestly, it is thinking like this that is the downfall of our country. It is partisan for the sake of being partisan. I mean, did you guys not read about the bill to keep government from doing business with companies that would prevent women from suing if they were raped? You'd HAVE to be on board with that, right? I mean, not doing business with people who let women be raped--that sounds like a good idea, methinks. Yet the bill received 30 votes against. All Republicans. Is it because Republicans want women to be raped? Of course not! It's because Al Franken proposed it, that dirty Democrat. It's not that they want women to be raped, its that they would rather they be raped than comply with the democrats. I'm getting a bit angry now, so I'll link to the Daily show clip. That at least made me laugh about the whole deal... (edit: not to imply democrats are any better, because they aren't)
~Jason
Last edited: