Left is Against Liberty and Free Speech

B_VinylBoy

Sexy Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2007
Posts
10,363
Media
0
Likes
68
Points
123
Location
Boston, MA / New York, NY
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
...not if its satirtical.

And Rush Limbaugh is not a comedian.
Hence why the term "satirical" doesn't come to mind when he speaks.

And there is nothing prejudice about slavery. Prejudice means to pre judge someone. This has nothing to do with your above comment.

I take it you were better at gym in school because English is not your best subject.

Here's the definition of prejudice from Webster's Dictionary:
prejudice - Definition from the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary

1: injury or damage resulting from some judgment or action of another in disregard of one's rights ; especially : detriment to one's legal rights or claims

2 a (1): preconceived judgment or opinion (2): an adverse opinion or leaning formed without just grounds or before sufficient knowledge b: an instance of such judgment or opinion c: an irrational attitude of hostility directed against an individual, a group, a race, or their supposed characteristics

"Slavery" falls right in line with definition one of prejudice. And there's no disputing or re-interpreting this because you didn't create the dictionary.
 

jason_els

<img border="0" src="/images/badges/gold_member.gi
Joined
Dec 16, 2004
Posts
10,228
Media
0
Likes
163
Points
193
Location
Warwick, NY, USA
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
These are your examples??????? Are you kiding me? Every US presdent has made decisions in the Gray areas that have later turned out to be against the law. You guys make it sound like Bush is some sort of hitler because a guy who in fact DID have malice toward the US spent some time behind bars. And the fast majority of Americans are for wiretapping and waterboarding anyone suspected of plotting violence against the US. Say you disagree with Bush's tactics, ok. But speak of him like he is a Lenin, Stalin or Hitler??? please find another country to live in.

They are indeed. The fact you refuse to realize them for what they blatantly are simply tells me you have an emotional investment in your political beliefs that no amount of proof will ever meet your expectation.

I don't know about your assertion that, "the fast[sic] majority of Americans are for wiretapping and waterboarding anyone." The opinion of the majority is not what matters here, the law is. Right now, torture violates US treaties and law and the wiretapping is blatantly illegal. The Constitution stands not only to protect the interest of the majority, but also to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority.
 

B_24065

1st Like
Joined
Jul 15, 2006
Posts
639
Media
0
Likes
1
Points
163
And Rush Limbaugh is not a comedian.
Hence why the term "satirical" doesn't come to mind when he speaks.



I take it you were better at gym in school because English is not your best subject.

Here's the definition of prejudice from Webster's Dictionary:
prejudice - Definition from the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary

1: injury or damage resulting from some judgment or action of another in disregard of one's rights ; especially : detriment to one's legal rights or claims

2 a (1): preconceived judgment or opinion (2): an adverse opinion or leaning formed without just grounds or before sufficient knowledge b: an instance of such judgment or opinion c: an irrational attitude of hostility directed against an individual, a group, a race, or their supposed characteristics

"Slavery" falls right in line with definition one of prejudice. And there's no disputing or re-interpreting this because you didn't create the dictionary.

Definition 2 a 1 and 2 was Clearly the one i was refering to. So dont insult my intelligence over preference of a definition.
 

B_24065

1st Like
Joined
Jul 15, 2006
Posts
639
Media
0
Likes
1
Points
163
And Rush Limbaugh is not a comedian.
Hence why the term "satirical" doesn't come to mind when he speaks.



I take it you were better at gym in school because English is not your best subject.

Here's the definition of prejudice from Webster's Dictionary:
prejudice - Definition from the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary

1: injury or damage resulting from some judgment or action of another in disregard of one's rights ; especially : detriment to one's legal rights or claims

2 a (1): preconceived judgment or opinion (2): an adverse opinion or leaning formed without just grounds or before sufficient knowledge b: an instance of such judgment or opinion c: an irrational attitude of hostility directed against an individual, a group, a race, or their supposed characteristics

"Slavery" falls right in line with definition one of prejudice. And there's no disputing or re-interpreting this because you didn't create the dictionary.

Definition 2 a 1 and 2 was Clearly the one i was refering to. So dont insult my intelligence over preference of a definition.

what a fucking waste of time vinyl.
 

B_VinylBoy

Sexy Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2007
Posts
10,363
Media
0
Likes
68
Points
123
Location
Boston, MA / New York, NY
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
Definition 2 a 1 and 2 was Clearly the one i was refering to. So dont insult my intelligence over preference of a definition.

You don't have any intelligence to insult. :rolleyes:
Right now, you're acting like a scavenger looking through a trash can for something to gnaw on. I've posted a link to ten prejudicial and racial inflammatory comments made by Rush Limbaugh. I ALSO posted the dictionary definition to "prejudice". All you're telling me in response to all of this, in 50 words or less is, "Uh-uh! It isn't because I said so."

Your political views do NOT have any value that trumps the dictionary. Your social ignorance does NOT trump the blatantly obvious fact that Rush Limbaugh does engage in hate speech. And the fact that you're even TRYING to defend him, even with the evidence stacked against you, further exposes your own prejudices and cerebral ugliness.

Seriously, 20465... learn the art of shutting the f*** up once in a while. You tell others to do that here all the time. Now, why don't you do it yourself?
 

B_24065

1st Like
Joined
Jul 15, 2006
Posts
639
Media
0
Likes
1
Points
163
You don't have any intelligence to insult. :rolleyes:
Right now, you're acting like a scavenger looking through a trash can for something to gnaw on. I've posted a link to ten prejudicial and racial inflammatory comments made by Rush Limbaugh. I ALSO posted the dictionary definition to "prejudice". All you're telling me in response to all of this, in 50 words or less is, "Uh-uh! It isn't because I said so."

Your political views do NOT have any value that trumps the dictionary. Your social ignorance does NOT trump the blatantly obvious fact that Rush Limbaugh does engage in hate speech. And the fact that you're even TRYING to defend him, even with the evidence stacked against you, further exposes your own prejudices and cerebral ugliness.

Seriously, 20465... learn the art of shutting the f*** up once in a while. You tell others to do that here all the time. Now, why don't you do it yourself?

IMO Limbaughs comments arent hate speech. I read the 10 comments and i thought they were funny. period. and the defintion of prejudice that i used is in the dictionary! what the fuck asshole?
 

B_VinylBoy

Sexy Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2007
Posts
10,363
Media
0
Likes
68
Points
123
Location
Boston, MA / New York, NY
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
IMO Limbaughs comments arent hate speech. I read the 10 comments and i thought they were funny. period.

And that, my friend, is the sound of another nail going through the coffin of your dignity. :rolleyes:

and the defintion of prejudice that i used is in the dictionary!

The fact that you even tried to pick & choose certain "versions" of the same definition to defend what you thought was "hate speech" or not was comical enough.

Prejudice is prejudice, no matter how you try to look at it.
A racist comment is that, regardless if it was meant as a joke or not. Except when someone like Katt Williams says it, we all know it's a joke because he makes that clear before he goes into his stint. Rush Limbaugh doesn't disclose his so-called art for satire because in some way he realy does believe what he's saying.
 

vince

Legendary Member
Joined
May 13, 2007
Posts
8,271
Media
1
Likes
1,677
Points
333
Location
Canada
Sexuality
69% Straight, 31% Gay
Gender
Male
What's with people starting a thread with a bunch of wild accusations, giving no links to their sources, and then taking off and not posting again in their thread? If you're going to post something controversial, at least have the balls to stick around and discuss it.

Star got banned???
 

B_VinylBoy

Sexy Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2007
Posts
10,363
Media
0
Likes
68
Points
123
Location
Boston, MA / New York, NY
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
What's with people starting a thread with a bunch of wild accusations, giving no links to their sources, and then taking off and not posting again in their thread? If you're going to post something controversial, at least have the balls to stick around and discuss it.

They can't discuss it.
It's a convoluted, rhetorical belief that has no real merit or substantial proof, so there's nothing they can say that can actually defend it.

Star got banned???

There's already a thread in progress about that. What he was banned for is anyone's guess.
 

B_bi_in_socal

Just Browsing
Joined
Jan 11, 2009
Posts
226
Media
0
Likes
0
Points
101
Retard? Well, as a 57 year-old gay man who has survived this long I think I have a better idea about what is and what isn't hate speech and that someone like 24065 is more likely to spew it from his cowardly little lips. I've heard plenty of hate speech. I've been the subject of it. I've got the bullet wounds and repaired broken teeth to remind me that people like 24065 are closer to causing civil unrest leading to the murders of lesbians and gays by spewing hate speech.

24065 -- is that an area code, your birthday, pin number for your Visa Card? Must have some significance.


There's those hysterics again.
 

AllHazzardi

Experimental Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2004
Posts
338
Media
76
Likes
18
Points
163
Location
Palm Springs, California
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Obama isn't limiting David Brooks or George Will's freedom of speech... Pat Buchanan and the folks over at the AIE aren't being silenced. Real conservatives have nothing to worry about.


You know, I just wanted to ask you a question. Just as you take offense to someone on the right trying to define what you, the left, are. Why is it you do not notice that by saying "Real conservatives" are safe, you are defining the right while being on the left? The exact thing you're speaking against.

Personally I don't think it's fair to either side, but you both do it.... zero-sum. All in all, that's what it comes down to, a zero-sum. They do, so you do. Not necessarily directly consciously... but they do, so you end up doing too.

I think the definition of a "Real conservative" should be down to the conservatives as a whole, not the person holding the gun with finger on the trigger. Not like some serial killer who changes who people are so they are something he can vilify before killing.

Let Conservative be defined by those who are.
Let Liberal be defined by those who are.

Everything else is just opinion.








Minor addition/edit: Personally, I feel those that advocate free speech should do it for everyone, not just their team.

Second edit, to something said in the thread: Simple clarification, prejudice is a judgment, DISCRIMINATION is an action. Prejudice does not go beyond the realm of thought to the realm of action, if it does, it becomes Discrimination.

Historical clarification, while you may interpret slavery as bad, in the time period where it was done by GOOD people, they were clothed, fed, and cared for. They were essentially a more direct form of the work force system we have today, instead of hiring a union guy who pays his dues to have his rights secured, direct care was given to slaves. Now, there's the other side too, the ones who would mistreat and kidnap the slaves from their homeland, the slavers. These were the people who were harming others. These are the people who did so with malice. They are not the only ones to blame, the lawmakers didn't try to fix anything either. Ironically, in the entire situation, the one who is LEAST to blame is the common slave owner who gave food and shelter to their slaves for the work they did, yet these are most often the people gone after. The thing about right and wrong is, before you take any action, you really have to be absolutely sure what they are, and who is what, before you do anything. Usually you're wrong in the end, misdefining or misinterpreting something along the way.
 
Last edited:

treefarmer

Just Browsing
Joined
May 28, 2007
Posts
40
Media
0
Likes
0
Points
151
Location
North Central Texas
Sexuality
90% Straight, 10% Gay
Gender
Male
Protesting/boycotting, and passing legislation to sensor are two TOTALLY different things. One is an expression of free speech, the other removes it. The fairness doctrine is totally unconstitutional, but then again, thats never stopped the Dems in the past. There is a HUGE differnece between creating equal opportunities for all points of views and dictating the results of which points of view are most heard. the first is true fairness, that is, if you have something to say, then say it, and the market place (the people) will dictate how valuable your ideas are. And the other is marxist totalitarianism, that is, we (govt) must dictate which points of view are expressed, regardless of demand, because it is concerned with equality in results rather than equality in opportunity.

Thanks, 24065, I didn't have a chance to reply before I read your reply. Couldn't have said it better myself. I can't boycott the Dixie Chicks because I don't buy their music in the first place. However, my actions as an individual citizen, including calling for a boycott of the Pixie Chickens, are NOT the same as if I were a member of Congress voting to instigate the so-called Fairness Doctrine and impose it on the other individual citizens of the U.S.
 

AllHazzardi

Experimental Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2004
Posts
338
Media
76
Likes
18
Points
163
Location
Palm Springs, California
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Thanks, 24065, I didn't have a chance to reply before I read your reply. Couldn't have said it better myself. I can't boycott the Dixie Chicks because I don't buy their music in the first place. However, my actions as an individual citizen, including calling for a boycott of the Pixie Chickens, are NOT the same as if I were a member of Congress voting to instigate the so-called Fairness Doctrine and impose it on the other individual citizens of the U.S.

I would only disagree with one particular thing. It is totalitarianism, but not marxist totalitarianism. Marx was a utopianist, his belief is that we could all live together for mutual survival if we really decided to. But Marx understands the laggardly way people change ways of life, so he knew it needed to take time. The communists you see of the world today jumped straight to communism, and so they suffered, especially at the hands of capitalists. Naturally, simple response, communist tries to make capitalist suffer as well. A utopia, that which we see in many books, sci-fi, and stories of religious heavens of lore, was his ideal world. I am certain that if offered, everyone would want such a world. So the thing that's necessary is understanding how to bring it forth.

Marx did not believe in forcing opinions on others, those were the leaders of his country. Marx believed that in a utopian society, everyone's idea would be treated equally. No stone would be left unturned in humanity's vision.


But yes, what he was talking about is DEFINITELY totalitarian... just not marxist.
 

treefarmer

Just Browsing
Joined
May 28, 2007
Posts
40
Media
0
Likes
0
Points
151
Location
North Central Texas
Sexuality
90% Straight, 10% Gay
Gender
Male
Obama isn't limiting David Brooks or George Will's freedom of speech... Pat Buchanan and the folks over at the AIE aren't being silenced. Real conservatives have nothing to worry about.

You are correct--at the moment. The Fairness Doctrine isn't being imposed on the leftist mainstream media (ABC, NBC, CBS, CNBC, MSNBC, etc.) nor the leftist print media (NYT, WP, LAT, Time, New Yorker, etc.) -- only radio outlets.

Its effect would be to REQUIRE those outlets to present leftist radio show broadcasts after Limbaugh, Hannity, Levin, Ingraham, etc. -- free response time that wouldn't otherwise survive if leftists were required to purchase time or provide advertising revenue as these people do. It would require religious programming to be followed by free response by atheists -- free response time that wouldn't otherwise survive if the atheists were required to purchase time or provide advertising revenue as these people do.

That would effectively silence conservative radio since the station can't survive providing "free" time. WBAP in Dallas, which carries Limbaugh, tried to carry a leftist program hosted by Jim Hightower. Its audience of three people meant it couldn't carry its weight in providing advertising or other revenue. Leftist Radio America, hosted by Al Franken and Jean Garafolo, was a continual money loser so that they finally stole ... pardon me ... borrowed money from the Boys and Girls Clubs of New York.

After all his ranting and raving and persecution of "corrupt" CEOs, Eliot Spitzer, that "hero" of the "common man," especially "the Children," refused to prosecute Franken, et al, for embezzling (stealing) funds from "the Children."

So, you are only partially right -- the worst is yet to come.
 

treefarmer

Just Browsing
Joined
May 28, 2007
Posts
40
Media
0
Likes
0
Points
151
Location
North Central Texas
Sexuality
90% Straight, 10% Gay
Gender
Male
This is a contrived 'controversy'; no one is advocating the re-instatement of the Fairness Doctrine. ...

What an ignorant statement. We wouldn't have even one post about this if it weren't a reflection of a broader topic in society. Leftists hate free speech. Dems can call for the murder of conservatives--just search for Hollywood types that have inferred it or directly stated it. Alec Baldwin called for Rep Hyde to be stoned to death and his family to be murdered. No leftist outcry ensued. One called for the death of Justice Thomas -- one stated she hoped he would get heart disease and die.

What is it about Pelosi (D-CA), Stabenow (D-MI), Slaughter (D-NY), Kerry (D-MA), Kucinich (D-OH), Feinstein (D-CA) who have all stated that it ought to be brought back and that Congress should conduct hearings about it that you don't understand. "Contrived?" Do you even know what the word means?

Stabenow has a special interest in it: Stabenow's husband, Tom Athans, was executive vice president of the left-leaning talk radio network Air America. He left the network in 2006, when it filed for bankruptcy, and co-founded the TalkUSA Radio Network. (Air America failed even after it stole money from the Boys and Girls Clubs of New York.)
 

treefarmer

Just Browsing
Joined
May 28, 2007
Posts
40
Media
0
Likes
0
Points
151
Location
North Central Texas
Sexuality
90% Straight, 10% Gay
Gender
Male
Given the Patriot Act and Bush's infamous dismissal of The Constitution of the United States as, "....just a piece of paper," the politicizing of the Attorney General's office, illegal wiretapping, and fighting to hold American citizens as terrorists without habeas corpus or any other Constitutionally guaranteed right, I'd have to say that the Republicans have proven themselves a greater threat to American liberty than the Democrats though both parties are responsible for the passing of these unconstitutional laws.

If that quote were an actual quote from all the "actual" sources and not the nocturnal emissions of leftist blogs, it would have been all over ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC (especially), NYT, LAT, WP, AP, Reuters, etc., etc., etc., during the various debates over the Patriot Act, the endless Abu Gharaib reprises, the Club Gitmo stories, etc., etc., etc., ad nauseum. As it is, after going through four or five pages, I couldn't find one reference from any of the mainstream media outlets mentioned above. I did check out several articles of those "685,000" other hits and many of them debunk the story.

FactCheck.org: Did President Bush call the Constitution a "goddamned piece of paper?"

You leftists needed to stop swallowing anything and everything that comes out of the leftists pricks you like to suck ... sorry, that doesn't add to the serious discussion of it but you really, really, really, ought to check out what you say with more than just leftist blogs.
 

B_24065

1st Like
Joined
Jul 15, 2006
Posts
639
Media
0
Likes
1
Points
163
I would only disagree with one particular thing. It is totalitarianism, but not marxist totalitarianism. Marx was a utopianist, his belief is that we could all live together for mutual survival if we really decided to. But Marx understands the laggardly way people change ways of life, so he knew it needed to take time. The communists you see of the world today jumped straight to communism, and so they suffered, especially at the hands of capitalists. Naturally, simple response, communist tries to make capitalist suffer as well. A utopia, that which we see in many books, sci-fi, and stories of religious heavens of lore, was his ideal world. I am certain that if offered, everyone would want such a world. So the thing that's necessary is understanding how to bring it forth.

Marx did not believe in forcing opinions on others, those were the leaders of his country. Marx believed that in a utopian society, everyone's idea would be treated equally. No stone would be left unturned in humanity's vision.


But yes, what he was talking about is DEFINITELY totalitarian... just not marxist.


Willtom questioned this connection as well and here was my response.

Karl Marx took the metaphysics of Hegel and applied them to economic Materialism. Hegel believed that reality was constituted by a never ending cycle of thesis, antinthesis and finally synthesis. marx applied this to his economic theory by stating communism (one equal class) would come about through the synthesizing of the bourgois and proletariat classes. Marx' entire economic theory was driven by an ideology that there is an egalitarian end to the dialectic. In other words, Marxism at its heart and soul is theory which moves toward equality of ends and results. This is totally anti-freedom and anti-capitolist. And contrary to your view, marxist egalitarianism can be applied to many different area outside economics...like the ideas that support the fairness doctrine.

The idea of fairness or equality in results is a marxist principle.
 

treefarmer

Just Browsing
Joined
May 28, 2007
Posts
40
Media
0
Likes
0
Points
151
Location
North Central Texas
Sexuality
90% Straight, 10% Gay
Gender
Male
...

Marx did not believe in forcing opinions on others, those were the leaders of his country. Marx believed that in a utopian society, everyone's idea would be treated equally. No stone would be left unturned in humanity's vision.

But yes, what he was talking about is DEFINITELY totalitarian... just not marxist.

You should reread Das Kapital. Marx basically states that the "dictatorship of the proletariat" would have to rule until the bourgeoisie (the middle class) was overcome and "convinced" of the "truth." Marxism/Communism cannot tolerate opposing opinions.
 

sparky11point5

Sexy Member
Joined
Jun 23, 2005
Posts
471
Media
0
Likes
85
Points
173
Location
Boston
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Gender
Male
Are you really saying that if one or more individuals posts a statement on the Internet it must be true? Really? That it is not appropriate to challenge the OP as being not based on fact?

My point is this -- the Fairness Doctrine was a US statute enacted a long time ago, when ownership of media was vastly different in this country. When this changed, and the law was no longer needed (or recognized as even a good idea in the first place) it was repealed. The OP was, in effect, was saying 'liberals want to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine'.

This is actually not true, and I challenge the OP, or you to prove otherwise. I know that Limbaugh and others claim that liberals want to do so, but right wing radio hosts and entertainers are not really authoritative. So, show me a link to a statement by Obama, the FCC chair, or a congressman who sits on any committee related to communications and media, and I will recant. You list names, but no proof. Everything else you mention, really has nothing to do with this thread.

BTW, Air America is still on the air.

What an ignorant statement. We wouldn't have even one post about this if it weren't a reflection of a broader topic in society. Leftists hate free speech. Dems can call for the murder of conservatives--just search for Hollywood types that have inferred it or directly stated it. Alec Baldwin called for Rep Hyde to be stoned to death and his family to be murdered. No leftist outcry ensued. One called for the death of Justice Thomas -- one stated she hoped he would get heart disease and die.

What is it about Pelosi (D-CA), Stabenow (D-MI), Slaughter (D-NY), Kerry (D-MA), Kucinich (D-OH), Feinstein (D-CA) who have all stated that it ought to be brought back and that Congress should conduct hearings about it that you don't understand. "Contrived?" Do you even know what the word means?

Stabenow has a special interest in it: Stabenow's husband, Tom Athans, was executive vice president of the left-leaning talk radio network Air America. He left the network in 2006, when it filed for bankruptcy, and co-founded the TalkUSA Radio Network. (Air America failed even after it stole money from the Boys and Girls Clubs of New York.)
 

mindseye

Experimental Member
Joined
Apr 9, 2002
Posts
3,399
Media
0
Likes
15
Points
258
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
We're so open-minded about free speech! When we protest the Dixie Chicks, that's just protest, not censorship! But when we propose amendments against flag-burning, well, that's 'cause the flag is special. And when we regulate online porn, well, that's protecting children! And when we out a CIA operative to punish her husband, well, let's not count that one. And when we ordered a scientist on a federal contract not to speak on the matter of global warming, well, we were just getting our money's worth! And when we force science teachers to stop teaching evolution, well, that's being respectful of our religion! And when we fined Janet Jackson's left boobie, well, er, ...protecting children -- did I use that one already? As for Andres Serrano, well, it's not really art unless it has eagles or flowers or dogs playing poker. See, we just loooooove free speech*.

*some exceptions apply.