Wasn’t it just last week when the most hateful thing ever said was by Hilary Rosen? Something about Ann Romney having "never worked a day in her life."
The horror!
Republicans and other aristocrats were shocked, shocked at the vile hate speech and quickly demanded more civility from those hateful Democrats.
Right.
So, why should anyone be upset by Ted Nugent’s latest display of venomous ignorance? Those silly politically correct liberals must be so thin-skinned.
For someone as intensely vocal in his opposition to drugs, Teddy boy certainly appeared to have taken a big shrill pill at last week’s NRA convention. After his paranoia and hate came pouring out of his mouth for the consumption of his fellow gun nuts, the Secret Service was obligated to investigate.
Ironically, once again another radical Right Winger just wasted some more of our tax dollars.
"We are aware of the incident with Ted Nugent, and we are conducting appropriate follow-up," said Secret Service spokesman Brian Leary in a statement. "We recognize an individual's right to freedom of speech but we also have a responsibility to determine and investigate intent."
Yes they had to go question Teddy boy because of his violence-inciting hate talk.
We remember back in 2008 when his typically foul mouth shot off, “Obama, he's a piece of shit. I told him to suck on my machine gun”. And, “Hey Hillary, you might want to ride one of these into the sunset, you worthless bitch.”
Now he’s back with even more bile.
"We need to ride into that battlefield and chop their heads off in November," Nugent said at the convention.
Ok. We get the bloody framing of the democratic process with this remark. Fine.
But that wasn’t enough. He needed to kick it up a notch.
At the convention Teddy boy admonished the solvent and oil scented firearms enthusiasts, if they do not "clean house in this vile, evil, America-hating administration, I don't even know what you're made out of."
Hateful American extremists really do love to call White House Democrats a “vile, evil, America-hating administration”, don't they?
People who listen to him are fools. Apart from hunting, Teddy boy is not an expert at anything. Your average high school music teacher knows way more about music.
Ted may be a better than average hunter and a mediocre, one-key musician, but he takes the cake as a reactionary royal asshole.
Now he’s off into the full-tilt ravings of a true fascist.
On the Dana Loesch radio show Tuesday he said, “It's about 'we the people' taking back our American dream from the corrupt monsters in the federal government under this administration and the communist czars [Obama has] appointed."
Fascism: Exhibit “A”. People you hate are a bunch of commies.
"I've never in my life threatened anyone's life," he added. Maybe not, but his incendiary hate speech is quite enough to inspire some fellow gun nut to do the job for him.
I happen to know a Secret Service guy. We both grew up in the same small town in the big woods where we hunted and fished throughout our younger days. He told me they call the fringe types, “gun fags”.
My favorite part was when Teddy told the frightened gun sheeple, "If Barack Obama becomes the president in November again, I will either be dead or in jail by this time next year."
“Don’t laugh! Do you think that’s funny?” Teddy scowled at an amused listener.
Well I think it’s funny. Not that we rejoice in, or fear, the imminent demise or incarceration of a lunatic of the Hutaree Militia class.
No. I laugh at yet another empty promise from the radical Right BS factory.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
164 comments:
"People who listen to him are fools."
Agreed, as are people who write posts about what he says. Or take him as representative of, what do you call them, the "radical right."
Anybody here have any good dog recipes? I like mine cooked outside just like a pig, with lots of wasabi sauce!
HR,
Did I touch a nerve? He is a public figure and he did endorse your aristocrat, after all.
Readers:
Snark warning:(laced with radical Right-think)
Look out! Dozens a commies is a takin' over the House a Repersentives! I done heard all about it on FOX(R).
Tarnation! Commies is a crawlin' all over the White House too. Uncle Ted sez so.
AIEEE!!!
Quick, Festus! Fetch me my Winchester, them America hatin' commie librool gun grabbers is a lurkin' in the bushes. I just know it.
We best shoot first an ask questions later. They ain't a gittin' my guns.
We need us a good-ole-boy like Willard to save Amurika.
MO,
What? You mean Seamus didn't run away from Mitt after being hosed down and driven in hurricane force winds? You and that, that...savage commie with the bone through his nose ate him?
his incendiary hate speech is quite enough to inspire some fellow gun nut to do the job for him.
I hate this arguement. Crazy people are going to do crazy things - no one should self censor because someone might do something stupid.
Free,
Free speech is our right. But it is abused and profaned when it incites hatred and violence.
You may not like the point, but crazy people really do listen to more than just the voices in their head. And thanks to the radical Right, crazy has been lifted to unprecedented heights in this country.
Death panels, commies in the House, Muslim America-hater in the White House, etc. is destroying what little sanity many people may have left.
The best argument against my point would be the easily offended, censorship-obsessed conservatives who would howl about those evil satanic rock n roll lyrics that would drive their kids to suicide and mayhem. That hysteria even caught up Tipper Gore. Maybe you remember that little song and dance.
The difference being, songs are songs, and Teddy boy was spouting his radical politics and lunacy at a politically charged convention.
See the difference?
Here’s what I mean.
Jim David Adkisson was sentenced to life in prison after he pleaded guilty to two counts of murder he committed in a church in Tennessee. He also wounded six others at the Tennessee Valley Unitarian Universalist Church in Knoxville.
Why did he do it? Was he a schizophrenic hearing voices in his head telling him to kill demons?
No, he gunned down innocent people because he thought they were liberals.
He is not insane, at least by legal definition. And the voices he was influenced by were those of fellow conservative hate mongers. Police found books and material in his home by Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Michael Savage, and Bill O’Reilly.
Jim David Adkisson gunned down innocent people because he thought they were liberals at the Tennessee Valley Unitarian Universalist Church in Knoxville. He is not insane, at least by legal definition. And the voices he was influenced by were those of fellow conservative hate mongers. Police found books and material in his home by Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Michael Savage, and Bill O’Reilly.
And Adkisson left a note.
“Lately I’ve been feeling helpless in our war on terrorism. But I realized I could engage the terrorists’ allies here in America. The best allies they’ve got. The Democrats! The democrats have done everything they can do to tie our hands in this War on Terror. They’re all a bunch of traitors.
“The worst problem America faces today is Liberalism...Liberals have attacked every major institution that made America great. From the Boy Scouts to the Military, from education to Religion. The major news outlets have become the propaganda arm of the Democrat Party. Liberals are evil, they embrace the tenets of Karl Marx, they’re Marxist, socialist, communists.”
Just to be clear, he gives us three points on the page titled, “Know This If Nothing Else”.
"1. This was a hate Crime:
I hate the damn left-wing liberals. There is a vast left-wing conspiracy in this country and these liberals are working together to attack every decent and honorable institution in the nation, trying to turn this country into a communist state. Shame on them.
2. This was a Political Protest:
I’m protesting the liberal Supreme Court Justices for giving the terrorists at GITMO constitutional rights. I’m protesting the major news outlets ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, PBS, for being the propaganda wing of the Democrat Party. It’s criminal what they’re getting away with. They’re traitors! They must be stopped. I’m protesting the DNC for running such a radical leftist candidate. Osama Hussein Obama, yo mama. No experience, no brains, a joke. Dangerous to America. Hell he looks like Curious George!
3. This was a Symbolic Killing:
Who I wanted to kill was every Democrat in the Senate and House, the 100 people in Bernard Goldberg’s book. I’d like to kill everyone in the main stream media. But I know these people were inaccesible to me. I couldn’t get to the generals and high ranking officers in the Marxist movement so I went after the foot soldiers, the chickenshit liberals that vote in these traitorous people. Someone had to get the ball rolling. I volunteered. I hope others do the same. It’s the only way we can rid America of this cancerous pestilence!"
You can claim all you want that hate speech has no real effect. This guy tells us it does.
And the radical Right continues to feed this ignorance and hate.
Also, if speech did not influence people's behavior, why do so many companies spend billions of dollars advertising on radio and television? Think about it!
Jerry,
Yes. And should Goebbels and every other dictator’s minister of propaganda be exonerated, since it was merely "speech".
Language is tool of manipulation. Propaganda becomes a weapon in a war of ideology. Real consequences ensue.
What??? Ted Nugent "a mediocre, one-key musician?" Blasphemy! He's the world's greatest guitar player of all time. He even says so himself.
See the difference?
No.
Ted Kaczynski listened to a bunch of radical environmentalists and became the Unabomber. I don't blame environmentalists who claim global warming is going to kill us all, and who
use inflammatory rhetoric all the time ... I blame Ted freak'n Kaczynski.
When you blame the wrong person for a crime... or worse a potential crime you partially lift the responsibility from the criminal to someone else who hasn't done anything wrong.
Let me ask you guys this: What is the difference between this guy and Ted Nugent?
We know who the active denialists are – not the people who buy the lies, mind you, but the people who create the lies. Let’s start keeping track of them now, and when the famines come, let’s make them pay. Let’s let their houses burn. Let’s swap their safe land for submerged islands. Let’s force them to bear the cost of rising food prices.
That's a bit extreme, and could certainly as sure as Ted Nugent inspire a wacko. So by your logic... if Ted should shut up so should this guy. And where does that end? Or is it just Republicans you think need to keep quiet?
Tom,
To paraphrase the less talented, "Jimi's dead, but Ted's still...only Ted".
Free,
See the difference?
No.
Of course not. Nobody influences anybody, right?
But we see your false equivalence with Teddy boy and the author you linked.
The first glaring difference is, one is a liar. Climate change is happening. The White House is not overrun with commies. That’s a big difference, isn’t it?
The second being in the context you omitted: “Let’s take a page from those Tennessee firemen we heard about a few times last year – the ones who stood idly by as houses burned to the ground because their owners had refused to pay a measly $75 fee. We can apply this same logic to climate change.
The third is the premise set as “a mechanism that puts responsibility for damages on the shoulders of the shirkers and deniers who cause it and profit from it," after the damage is done.
So perhaps we should also blame the panic stricken crowd instead of the person shouting "fire" in a theatre? Let people incite all the mayhem they please?
Look. I’m not blaming Teddy for anything other than being a liar and an asshole. I’m saying idiots who believe his lies can be, and have been, dangerous.
For you to suggest he has zero influence, as a public figure, in the toxic hate and insanity is an unverifiable assumption at best.
When a killer openly credits propagandists, extremists, and hate merchants, it stands as verifiable evidence of influence.
OK?
That’s a big difference, isn’t it?
No. Assuming Nugent is lying, people have a right to say things you don't think are true. And assuming global warming is true, it doesn't change the nature of the statement. But make no mistake, I think both are quite free to say whatever they choose to, however they choose to. You apparently agree, so long as the speaker isn't a Republican fire-brand. That smacks of your own totalitarian knee jerk I've seen you exhibit time and again on this blog, and by the left in general. People can say what they want... so long as you think it's true and agree. Perhaps you should examine your own inner hypocrisy.
No.
Yes.
A stunning comeback as always.
Free0352: "And assuming global warming is true..."
Assuming?!?! It's a foregone conclusion!
I can't believe there are still deniers. Unbelievable!
They should check Nugent's pants to see if they are full of shit, or is that something he only does to avoid the draft???
JG,
What do you bet when the effects of climate change hit the fan every denier will blame it all on liberals, environmentalists, and their conspiracy of evil scientists?
Kulkuri,
I'm sure tough guy Chickenhawk Ted would mess his pants if he actually faced armed opposition.
If you want to have a conversation about Global Climate Change that would be fun, and better done on another thread. My thoughts on the matter are quite nuanced, and really would eat up too much time. However, that wasn't my point when I brought it up. My point was, it's hypocritical to "side" with one firebrand who says something extreme and not another because of the fire brand in question's party affiliation. That and it's a little creepy.
// Free// "people have a right to say things you don't think are true." .... Like, hmmmm Freedum123?
"I think both are quite free to say whatever they choose to, however they choose to. "
Hey,Free, I will take you up on that....
You say some of the most goddam batshit crazy stuff... oh oh and Ted is the most talented snce Bary Manilow hehehe
Didn't say I had to agree with it, just respect your right say it ;)
Fun Fact: Ted Nugent is from Michigan. Further fun fact- I went to high school pretty close to where Toby Nugent -Ted's son- went to high school. Further fun fact, in the 10th grade at a party out in the sticks (Horton MI) where he lived I beat up Ted's son. It was a super gay, high school boy fight.
I am filled with win forever. Okay not really but every time Ted talks big I think about that.
Those are fun facts.
I kinda know how you feel. Way back in physical management training at the job, I out-wrestled a guy just out of the Marines.
I'm sure he could out-shoot me, though. My eyesight prevented me from pursuing my youthful dreams of being a Marine pilot.
The non-reaction by the right to Ted Nugent's comments are just another example of their hypocrisy. Just imagine how the right would have reacted if a rapper was at a hip-hop conference and made similar comments about then-President Bush. We don't even have to imagine because we saw their response to the comments made by Natalie Maines of the Dixie Chicks.
Malcolm,
What? You mean nobody's banning his music and burning Nugent albums in the street like the Rightists did with the Chicks?
Yeah, Book burning, music burning, etc. is a characteristic of the radical Right.
I wonder if they see that behavior as similar to certain other extremist political groups.
Nahhh...
Book burning, music burning,~
personally, I prefer witch burning. Hey, iffen youse gonna have a witch hunt, it is best to burn a few..... helps when you wanna make wome wicked samores
Dave,
As I have been taught over and over again by conservatives, you can prove a platform by finding examples of those "in the movement" that exhibit certain qualities.
Conservatives always scrounge up a liberal who does something and calls that liberalism.
Therefore, I don't see how any conservative who does this could fail to then admit that he is representative of the [radical] right.
Of course, if conservatives reject this method of deciding what the Right stands for, then I await their multiple concessions on past topics of discussion where they showed us what motivates the left or what they believe.
It would seem you on the radical left care far more about what Ted Nugent says than any on the right do. My case in point? None of the Republican blogs I've read have done so much as a post on the subject, and all you read bout it seems on DU is what Ted Nugent is doing. I wonder if he would even be relevant if you guys didn't obsess over him so?
Wasn’t it just last week when the most hateful thing ever said was by Hilary Rosen? Something about Ann Romney having "never worked a day in her life."
None of the Democratic blogs I've read have done so much as a post on the subject.
The thing is, whenever a radical Rightie says Democrats are commies, not one, not one Republican repudiates it.
They must either agree or are too dishonest to call him out.
I vote the latter.
The problem Dave is that certain Democrats often sound like closet commies.
John,
To paraphrase: Conservatives always scrounge up a liberal who says something and calls that communism.
Free,
So everybody who'd rather have government control Big Oil than Big Oil control our government sounds like a commie?
That simply highlights the problem of Big Money dominating our government. That aint a Republic and it aint democracy.
And the racist/Right hate in the comment thread under that Waters clip is just what fascsim sounds like.
Government taking over the means of production is the very definition of communism.
Nobody's banning Nugent albums? None of us have any left from 1977
Don't look very hard, do you, Mr. Free. I found tons of them in the 20 or 30 wingnut blogs I read every day.
Listen, two things are going on here. First of all, Ted Nugent is a third rate has-been who hasn't had a hit in about 33 years, and who will do anything for attention. Second, Conservatives, who constantly attack the likes of Barbara Streisand and Sean Penn for daring to speak out on any issue, are actually far bigger suck-ups to celebrity than liberals ever were, but the best they can do in the way of someone to mouth their idiocy is a loser like Ted.
It's a marriage made in heaven.
Government taking over the means of production is the very definition of communism.
No, it isn't. While it is a feature of both socialism and communism, you neglect the most significant factor.
Taking over oil companies, or even banks, still would not made us a communist country.
Communism must have a one-party dictatorship of an elite classs of political insiders that suppresses democracy. You know, like the Guardians Of Plutocracy.
GE,
You nailed it. The Right loves nothing more than deriding actors as being the mouthy, so-called "Hollywood elite"... as they worship Reagan, and "Big Hands Ahnold" leaves the Governor's office in California.
All actors are idiots, don't you know. Except Victoria Jackson.
"The greatest trick we Marxists pull is pretending our kind does not exist!"
Sorry, but you are no longer pulling it off. You are known for what you are.
At least for the thread,Just the Fascist is on topic. Way off base, but on topic.
Care to comment on your Chickenhawk Uncle "Potty Pants" Ted?
Didn't think so.
Didn't say Dave, that America is a communist country. I'm sure that breaks Maxine Waters'heart.
Malcolm: "The non-reaction by the right to Ted Nugent's comments are just another example of their hypocrisy. Just imagine how the right would have reacted if a rapper was at a hip-hop conference and made similar comments about then-President Bush."
Malcolm, the righties would be pooping green bricks over it, just like they did when those two New Black Panthers showed up at a polling place in the last presidential election and scared the righties into screeching for an immediate investigation.
Nugent is crazy. No sane person would spend a nanosecond with this disgusting character.
The right has a long history of getting away with inflammatory rhetoric that is not tolerated when a left-leaning celeb engages in it.
Romeny's non-condemnation is further proof of his cowardice in these matters. He's terrified of the Tea Party and the GOP base, so he allows comments like Nugents to pass without a strong rebuke.
He's lily-livered. If he hasn't the cajones to push back on a draft-dodging weakling like Nugent, how would Willard handle an international bully? Would he tell Ahmadinijad that he's being "inappropriate" when he tells the world he'd like to wipe Israel off the map?
When Hilary Rosen made her, by comparison mild, remarks on Ann Romney and working moms, the president came out immediately and specifically said spouses and children of candidates are off-limits.
Willard on Nugent's implying he'd kill the president if Obama were re-elected?
*crickets*
As I said before, this is indicative of Willard's character: a spineless coward.
Shaw,
You are absolutely correct about the media and political double standards.
And speaking of Right Wing corporate media and political bias:
This is the false meme propagated by AIPAC, Republicans, and Neocons and other Right Wingers: “he'd like to wipe Israel off the map”
Juan Cole:
Belief: Iran has threatened to attack Israel militarily and to "wipe it off the map."
Reality: No Iranian leader in the executive has threatened an aggressive act of war on Israel, since this would contradict the doctrine of 'no first strike' to which the country has adhered. The Iranian president has explicitly said that Iran is not a threat to any country, including Israel.
Belief: But didn't President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad threaten to "wipe Israel off the map?"
Reality: President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad did quote Ayatollah Khomeini to the effect that "this Occupation regime over Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time" (in rezhim-e eshghalgar-i Qods bayad as safheh-e ruzgar mahv shavad). This was not a pledge to roll tanks and invade or to launch missiles, however. It is the expression of a hope that the regime will collapse, just as the Soviet Union did. It is not a threat to kill anyone at all.
@John
"Of course, if conservatives reject this method of deciding what the Right stands for, then I await their multiple concessions on past topics of discussion where they showed us what motivates the left or what they believe."
I'll assume I'm one of the conservatives you're talking to, so you can find my concession here.
"This is the false meme propagated by AIPAC, Republicans, and Neocons and other Right Wingers: “he'd like to wipe Israel off the map”
I can't say I spent more than a few minutes checking this out, but although you are right about the others, I didn't find any evidence of AIPAC making this claim. I'm not a supporter of AIPAC, but I don't believe they have a particularly bad relationship with Obama.
GE,
It would be a speaker at AIPAC that I recall saying it. I'm aware of no official statement on that quote.
Here is a Hollywood Democrat I can agree with.
Lovitz was kinda funny there. Yes, you can say anything you want in comedy, right?
And as he said, all his characters are like arrogant idiots and likable jerks.
"This whole thing with Obama saying the rich don't pay their taxes is f*cking bullsh*t.”
This is the comedic use of exaggeration, of course. We all know Obama never said that. Nor did he ever raise taxes on the rich. He did favor allowing temporary cuts expire.
The horror.
This is also the comedic use of exaggeration, of course.
I recommend the clip if you like Lovitz’s style of humor.
And my favorite Republican SNL comedian:
Victoria "I’m here to save America from communism” Jackson
“This president was raised marxist.... Newt Gingrich and Mitt are socialists.”
When questioned about details on her anti-gay marriage rant:
"I don't know. You're confusing me. I'm a beginner political activist."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/16/victoria-jackson-cpac-gay-marriage-obama-gop-_n_1281783.html
Some performers don’t have to pretend to be arrogant idiots.
Lovitz,, of course, was not being a "political activist". It was entertainment.
A lot of people, those who think Rush is an "entertainer", don't know the difference.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/24/john-raese-ted-nugent-obama_n_1450907.html?1335324009&wpisrc=nl_fix
Republican West Virginia Senate candidate John Raese came to Ted Nugent's defense at a campaign event, calling the rocker a "patriot" and saying that "it's a concern" that the Secret Service investigated after Nugent's inflammatory speech threatening President Barack Obama.
Raese is running against incumbent Senate Democrat Joe Manchin, who famously won his seat thanks in part to a commercial in which he literally shot a hole in a Democratic cap and trade bill.
Yeah, that would qualify Teddy Boy as someone tight with the radical Right.
To go in a different direction since the conversation seems to have stalled...
I don't agree with, endorse, support, or in any other way condone Nugent's comments. But is anyone else troubled by the idea of government officials interrogating a man over something he said?
Sounds like a path our government should not be on, to question someone about their free speech.
But is anyone else troubled by the idea of government officials interrogating a man over something he said?
Depends on what that "something" is. Nugent got away with previous hate speech, because it was less threatening.
Then he made remarks that he said were not funny. So that would be serious, right?
Threats, even implied, are an abuse of free speech. When threats are made about the president, and there are more than ever since a black man moved into the White House, they should be investigated.
Wouldn't you agree?
Second question: Is anyone else troubled that Dave thinks "hate speech" is exempt from the usual understanding of free speech?
The plain language of the First Amendment is pretty clear to me, Dave. I don't want government infringing on your or my free speech. That includes deciding what constitute's "hate speech," and therefore what is an "abuse" of my First Amendment right.
A lot of people, those who think Rush is an "entertainer", don't know the difference
Who cares what the differences is. The First Amendment doesn't say "Freedom of speech... especially for comedians, unless you're a political activist." It says "Freedom of speech." Period. There are very, very few limits on it - lets not have the "Cry fire in a movie theater argument"
In fact, I'd say the intent of the Amendment has more to do with freedom for political activists than it does comedians. Even washed up rock guitar playing activists.
And what Nugent said wasn't all that threatening. The Secret Service didn't think so at least and they are pretty much the litmus test. Your feigned outrage is laughable. I on the other hand reserve my outrage for actual actions, which are all that matter. I guess your mom forgot to give you the sticks and stones speech.
A lot of people, those who think Rush is an "entertainer", don't know the difference
My experience with Dave is he's all about some freedom for "his side" and all about totally fucking dominating "the other."
Which is funny since he's always accusing us of doing just that. Pot meet kettle.
HR,
So just where did I say Nugent should be punished or silenced? I didn’t, did I?
You're troubled by what you believe I think. I differentiated between hate speech and threats. You ignored that.
Free shares your erroneous pre-conceptions of what I am "all about" as well.
Didn’t John Myste already inform you of this tendency of yours?
Please respond to what I wrote, not what you think I think.
And answer my question, “Wouldn't you agree?”, as I do yours, please.
Free,
While you may assert it wasn't "all that threatening", Nugent crossed the threshold far enough for the SS to go talk to him, right?
Actions, not speech, are all that matter with you. So I take it you have no qualms about slander, threats, and totalitarian propagandists like Goebbels and other "final solution" advocates.
It's ok with you guys for someone to use lies to incite a mob to riot.
So there is no harmful influence by words, eh?
HR and Free,
You two not only hate the taxes that provide for a civil society, but you hate the idea of civil society itself.
It's a good thing we have sensible laws that disagree with you two.
---
Did you see the example? I argued with what I said you think, not with what you actually said, just like you've been doing.
I hope this helps with our discussion.
Ahh, the irony!
Dave, you accused me of "You're troubled by what you believe I think... Please respond to what I wrote, not what you think I think."
And then you tell me that, along with Free, "You two not only hate the taxes that provide for a civil society, but you hate the idea of civil society itself."
Show me where I've ever said I hate taxes and hate the idea of civil society. Or is that just what you think I think?
My only complaint was with your words, not what I think you think. You labeled Nugent's speech as hate speech. I think there's something wrong with 1) creating categories of speech that are unacceptable and 2) government agencies interrogating someone about their speech.
If it helps you defeat my argument by creating a straw man, then please proceed.
I don't hate taxes, it's more what they spend the money on. Build me some roads, hire some cops and courts and an air craft carrier or two and pretty much fuck off. That's evident.
You on the other hand Dave get your panties in a twist every time someone says something you think is "hate speech." You will never hear me use the super lame term "hate speech." Speech is speech and it's free. Nugent, or anyone else for that matter does not need to be quiet and shut up. That isn't what you think. I know that because that is what you've said. Any time someone says something you don't like you start crying and blubbering about how they need to be quiet. I'm quite the opposite. I happen to think the more information and opinions out there the better. That's why I love Michael Moore. He's done more to advance the cause of libertarianism by providing a glaring example of how fucked in the head "progressivism" (oxymoron if there ever was one) is than any actual libertarian ever could. He's won us hundreds of thousands of converts. I hope he never shuts up. And that is the difference between you and me.
You on the other hand Dave get your panties in a twist
You have never met Dave and you should not fantasize about his undergarments.
You on the other hand Dave get your panties in a twist every time someone says something you think is "hate speech."
You will never hear me use the super lame term "hate speech."
You can claim all you want that hate speech has no real effect.
Dave,
"The irony intended as an object lesson and example."
I don't think so, but whatever. I took your comments at face value, and I think now you're backing off by calling it "an object lesson" because you know you looked like a fool to do exactly what you accused me of.
"You incorrectly stated what I think."
At no time did I state what you think OR what I think you think. Your repeating it doesn't make it true. I quoted you calling Nugent's words hate speech. I've done nothing more or less. (I see signs that you know you're losing the argument.)
"And as you still refuse to answer my question, you sever the bonds of good faith required for thoughtful discussion."
I am not required to answer every question you pose. You write a post. I choose whether or not to comment. You choose whether or not to ask a question. I choose whether or not to respond. If I think my comments need no further clarification, I often do not respond.
By repeatedly reminding me to answer your question, you start to sound like Just the Facts, whom you like to accuse of trolling because he asks a lot of questions. Questions you generally refuse to answer...
"You labeled Nugent's speech as hate speech." "Yes, because it is. You, for reasons unexplained, claimed, “I don't agree with, endorse, support, or in any other way condone Nugent's comments.”"
It's cold outside. Do you also need me to explain to you why I think it's cold outside? I said I don't agree with Nugent, but that's not good enough for you so now I have to explain why? Because I would not speak the words that he spoke and they don't ring true to me. Satisfied?
"This speech reflects and promotes hate. This speech reflects and arouses anger. This speech misinforms. And he is free to say it. And I am free to appropriately call him a hateful lying asshole, for being a hateful lying asshole spewing hateful lying asshole, albeit constitutionally protected, speech. That is what I think. Now what do you think?"
Well, I'm glad you say he's free to say it. I certainly never objected to his freedom to say it or your freedom to respond. But now you're the one being disingenuous. You used the phrase "hate speech" knowing full well that has a specific legal definition, and it's a term that's used to stifle free speech.
Unless you're going to plead ignorance... That seems to be your pattern today: to say one thing and then deny that you meant it when you're called out.
Your original question was in this context: "Nugent got away with hate speech... Threats, even implied, are an abuse of free speech... Wouldn't you agree?"
My answer: No, I would not agree. Hate speech is a manufactured violation of political correctness designed to inhibit free speech without formally banning speech. I think free speech is an absolute right and cannot be abused.
Speech can be used to commit a crime, such as lying under oath or making a threat. In those cases, the crime needs to be prosecuted, but the speaker should still be free to speak.
Now I will interpret your statements: You apparently object to what you call "hate speech" and you think it's possible to abuse our right to free speech. I don't.
Hate speech is a manufactured violation of political correctness designed to inhibit free speech without formally banning speech. I think free speech is an absolute right and cannot be abused.
Well said.
Notice ONCE AGAIN who is on this blog defending a freedom and ONCE AGAIN who wants to limit or take away a right.
And they call us the authoritarian ones....
HR,
I think we have a breakthrough.
So you believe speech that promotes and incites hate, and anger, especially through falsehoods, is not an abuse of speech?
Fine. You wrote:
I think free speech is an absolute right and cannot be abused.
Immediately followed by:
Speech can be used to commit a crime, such as lying under oath or making a threat.
Right. You used the word “used” in a place where abused would apply. It is an abuse of free speech.
My point.
Almost anything can be used or abused. A firearm may be “used” to commit a crime, but that makes it an abuse of the right to bear arms. See?
Hate speech is a manufactured violation of political correctness designed to inhibit free speech without formally banning speech. I think free speech is an absolute right and cannot be abused.
That would be your side’s politically correct, manufactured masking of the real hate in radical Right ideology. You may believe shouting fire in a theatre is not an abuse and an absolute right; we don’t.
You apparently object to what you call "hate speech" and you think it's possible to abuse our right to free speech. I don't.
Well, yes. You just mentioned abuses, but framed them as “used” instead of abused.
I’m not objecting to it so much as I’m calling it what it is. Words and actions do not need to be a crime to be wrong or abusive.
I’m sure you understand the concept of abusive language. If not, then we have nowhere to go on this topic.
Republicans use lies, that is, abuse the truth, all the time. Commies, death panels, liberal corporate media, etc fill books.
You are merely attempting to mollify the hate, anger, and falsehoods that are essential in radical Right speech.
That’s your job. You are a talented turd polisher.
Well done.
And I’m merely calling it what it is. That’s my job.
And that’s the part you object to, because it’s ok for Righties to lie and inflame, but it’s not ok for liberals to call them on it.
We get it. Double standards and false equivalence abound. The Right and corporate media do a swell job of muddying the water.
And last but not least:
Because I would not speak the words that he spoke and they don't ring true to me. Satisfied?
Yes. And this would be due to Nugent being a hateful lying asshole. Thank you, very much.
So, despite our different perspectives and framings of the matter, we agree on something after all.
Cheers.
--
Free.
Now there you go again. Telling what I think, or don’t think, as it were. You never disappoint in your wrongness.
Nugent, or anyone else for that matter does not need to be quiet and shut up. That isn't what you think..
Where did I say Nugent should shut up? I see Teddy Potty Pants as you see Moore.
Read my post again more slowly...
Oh, never mind.
Look what I said.
My favorite part was when Teddy told the frightened gun sheeple, "If Barack Obama becomes the president in November again, I will either be dead or in jail by this time next year."
“Favorite part” means I liked it. More Teddy, more. C’mon One Key Wonder Boy, You can do better than that. Your mouth is a reservoir of fanatic hate for the world to hear.
And:
Well I think it’s funny. Not that we rejoice in, or fear, the imminent demise or incarceration of a lunatic of the Hutaree Militia class.
No. I laugh at yet another empty promise from the radical Right BS factory.
Yes, I’m amused. Entertained, even.
It pays to have a sick sense of humor watching the Cult of Conned-servatives.
I was speaking specifically about Citizens United. Or have you reversed your stance that "money is speech," as you have in the past ignorantly framed the point?
I'll answer for HR here-
So you believe speech that promotes and incites hate, and anger, especially through falsehoods, is not an abuse of speech
Yes.
And I already brought up the fucking ignorance (which I predicted you'd use a few comments ago) of the "fire in a theater" arguement. How very typical of you?
But glad I've got you pinned down finally on the subject. Ted Nugent had every right to say what he said, so sayith Dave Dubya.
The Real Deal.... is Nugent has always felt he was FREE to do anything...anything... he wanted to do.
including... sex with underage girls. He admitted it on a VH1 interview.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/04/18/1084534/-Romney-has-a-Pedophile-Problem-Named-Ted-Nugent-
Nugent has been around awhile. You can find, as well, instances where he advocates killing..killing... certain criminals with out any due process. He has been a basket case for some time. Bordering on crazy...and when crazy people say things verging on advocating assassination and murder.... it is no longer Free Speech....
Ted Nugent had every right to say what he said, so sayith Dave Dubya
We’re glad you finally realized this. Took long enough.
We’re also glad Righties admit they believe speech that promotes and incites hate, and anger, and fear, especially through falsehoods, is not an abuse of speech.
This is what defines the true hypocritical character of the party of “real Americans”, “family values” and “moral majority”. You guys really do need to embrace the hate, the anger and the falsehoods we are always pointing out. For there is no morality when your only values have a dollar sign attached.
This also suggests I was more correct than not with, "You two not only hate the taxes that provide for a civil society, but you hate the idea of civil society itself".
So referencing real limits to speech is "F-ing ignorance". Apparently "ignorance" is whatever you don't like.
Why? Because it's an actual precedent and supports my point? Of course.
No wonder you hate it. You hate being wrong, especially when, in the eyes of civil society, I’m right.
I understand. Peace and love to you, brother.
okjimm,
As we know, Right wing "values" allow and embrace the idea that those with more money deserve more "free speech". No wonder Big Money dominates the media, the political world, and public policy.
Yeah, the elites know what's best for the rest of us, all right.
Well, money DOES matter Dave. Money fuels my hopes and dreams, puts food on my families table, and most importantly funds my Johnny Walker Green Label. Anything that takes away from that and doesn't directly benefit me I don't like. Money matters, a whole lot.
As for the "hate" go re-read these comments. Worst thing I said was that Progressivism is "fucked in the head." That's because as you said... I don't like ignorance. You're right, I DON'T like it - and Progressivism IS ignorant. No system is perfect but not all systems are created equal, and some are clearly better than others and Progressivism near the bottom of the totem pole in effectiveness. If your goal is for people - especially poor people- to have money it's about the worst system you can have in a free country, hence why I don't like it. Clearly a person who supports it hasn't analyzed the data and is... ignorant... as in lacking knowledge. I think Progressives base their support of that system on misguided compassion that actually is counter productive to their goals - yet they remain blinded by emotion. I divorce myself from emotion and simply look at cold, hard numbers. Simply contrast a free market economic system with that of a Progressive country... like Greece. The data speaks for it's self. In the end the cold, hard accounting of numbers trumps the emotionally driven, overly compassionate Progressive system.
And yet, for a free market, economically LIBERAL system to function people must be tolerant of each other, and Americans do this pretty well. Sure we have a very old tradition of aggressive political debate but that's a good thing. In many countries and through out most of history political problems were and are solved with violence. Kosovo and Serbia would be a good example. That's because when things near and dear to the heart like money is concerned people take the subject very seriously. Our aggressive tradition of political debate in this country doesn't cause violence, IT PREVENTS VIOLENCE. It allows citizens to exercise and defend their rights without using a gun like most people on this planet do. You don't see much political debate aggressive in character or not in most African countries... instead you see the machete. That's what sets the western world apart from the more primitive countries. The vast majority of American citizens don't fight each other with guns, we fight with words and votes. A much better system- that you neuter with political correctness. Not a wise course of action if you want to prevent violence.
Now that I've pointed out we need to be tolerant of each other and accept that aggressive debate style is required to maintain the peace in a democratic society and a Republic - look on this comment thread and see whose really slinging the insults. See whose making it personal? Seems to me I'm arguing not only for Ted's right to say whatever the hell he wants to, but for Michael Moore's right and really all citizen's rights to absolute free speech and the duty (yes I used that word) for all of us to accept it and be happy we have that alternative to violent action to accomplish political means... like keeping you pesky Progressives our of our pockets with your fucked in the head, misguided uber-compassion.
Well, money DOES matter Dave. Money fuels my hopes and dreams, puts food on my families table
Did I say money doesn’t matter? I was suggesting the hypocrisy of the “family values” political posturing.
Yes, follow the money. As I said, almost anything can be used or abused. It buys power and corruption and influences public policy. And it feeds people.
Simply contrast a free market economic system with that of a Progressive country
Ok, let’s compare the growing middle class and the expansion of higher education and opportunity we saw in a more progressive USA before Reagan, and contrast that with what we have under a so-called “free market” , “free trade”, and deregulated Wall Street.
Who’s getting the money? The elites have rigged the system to expand their wealth at the cost of stagnation, at best, and increased poverty and a lower standard of living for the rest.
you neuter with political correctness.
As I indicated, political correctness swings both ways. I was called a traitor for calling Bush and Cheney liars and warmongers. Remember that Right Wing political correctness about not accusing the president of things during wartime? Yeah, whatever happened to that?
we need to be tolerant of each other and accept that aggressive debate style
That’s what we’re all about here. Teddy Boy is free to spew all the hate and lies he wants. And I will call him a hateful liar.
Simple as that.
Ok, let’s compare the growing middle class and the expansion of higher education and opportunity we saw in a more progressive USA before Reagan
Which 1970s are you talking about? Nixon? The most corrupt administration in 100 years? Or Ford, an administration known for inflation and an economic collapse? Or do you mean Carter, who made the nation into a laughing stock with the hostage crisis, cow-towed to the Soviet Union which was rapidly expanding it's influence during that era, and last but certainly not least brought the term misery index into the popular lexicon due to record unemployment and the dying of American industry. Yes the 1970s! If that's your idea of good government I'll pass.
Or perhaps you mean the 1960s? LBJ's social quagmire and poorly managed military adventures certainly did the country proud. However, I do think JFK had some solid ideas on how to stimulate the economy.
The elites have rigged the system to expand their wealth at the cost of stagnation,
How do they do that exactly? Through government, that's how. Why then, do you want more of their primary tool? That don't make no sense.
As I indicated, political correctness swings both ways
Two wrongs don't make a right. I may disagree with you, but your opposition to the war did not make you a traitor- but don't think their actions justify you to imitate theirs now that a Democrat is in the white house. Democrats once upon a time cared about debt to a point of calling the President "unpatriotic" for not reigning it in and over spending. What happened to that?
Sure Nixon was corrupt and Ford and Carter had a Vietnam War to pay off, and the economic repercussions of the OPEC embargo to deal with.
Not exactly the consequences of liberal social policies. What made things go downhill for America?
One little detail stands out.
Reagan's famous and fictitious "trickle down" nonsense took the US from a creditor nation to a debtor nation. Yessir.
The war on unions and the middle class was launced by Big Money through 12 years of Republican presidents. Corpo-dems like Clinton may not have helped much, but slowed the disaster.
That was the turning point. Thank you Republicans and corpo-dems. Big Money's Corporatocacy has been calling the shots ever since. The foxes were let into the henhouse and deregulation was the "big fix". Look how well that's turning out.
Democrats once upon a time cared about debt to a point of calling the President "unpatriotic" for not reigning it in and over spending. What happened to that?
Tax cuts on top of a couple unfunded wars, a corporate written Medicare Part D scam, and a little thing we call the Bush Crash of '08 did the trick.
So what's your point Dave? Why don't you democrats give a rats ass about a balanced budget anymore?
My point was contrasting the effects of "free market" Big Money dominance of government with progressive policies.
This was in response to your, "Simply contrast a free market economic system with that of a Progressive country"
I'm not a Democrat. (I used to vote for Republicans back when they were sane and humane.)
Why didn't Republicans give a rats ass about a balanced budget when they ran the show?
Both parties pay lip service to the ideal of a "balanced budget" because it makes them sound fiscally responsible to the people. They talk about a balanced budget while they accuse the other party of over-spending. Both are responsible. Both bring home the pork. Both allowed unfunded wars. Both kiss up to Wall Street and Big Money/military industrial complex interests.
People have been led to believe a balanced budget should be the first priority of government. It isn't, but it would be nice to have it.
The time has come, my kindred spirits, to acknowledge that the term “Progressive” is simply a polite, Americanized term for “Marxist” after all. Until a more appropriate term is agreed upon in national and international parlance, that should be our preference.
Just the Fascist as MP,
The time has come where the extreme radical Right has termed progressives "Marxist". That tradition was started by none other than Hitler.
Good little fascist coward.
Why didn't Republicans give a rats ass about a balanced budget when they ran the show?
For the same reason they really don't now. They're retarded. Now what's your party's excuse?
Both are responsible
Agreed.
And it does need to be government's first priority for this country, given the debt structure. Otherwise we won't have a government of any kind on a long enough time line. Well, we will it will just be completely useless.
Good little fascist coward.
Remember Dave, it was you who wants to make it illegal for movie companies to make political movies critical of candidates during an election season. Not Ted Nugent. Now whose more fascist bearing that in mind? You or Ted?
And there you go again.
Care to show us where I indicated I want that?
You guys amaze me. Righties incorrectly, and routinely, assume what liberals think. No wonder there's so much animosity. Their side has all the answers and know what everyone else thinks.
"Liberals hate freedom". "Liberals love abortion". "Liberals are Marxists". "Liberals don't have family values". "Liberals hate capitalism". "Liberals hate personal responsibility". The corporate media is the "liberal media". “Liberals are not real Americans”.
On and on and on this propaganda goes.
No wonder the cult of conned-servatves think liberals are destroying America.
That's what they are indoctrinated to believe.
These same words were once spoken with "Jew" instead of "Liberal" as the subject.
This is not conservatism. It is not about conserving American values. It is about suppressing democracy and the seizure of our government by Big Money elites.
Yet, do the Righties ever stop to consider for a minute who stands to gain by such propaganda? It ain't Joe Sixpack.
That's where I see the fascism.
Care to show us where I indicated I want that?
So I was mistaken when I understood you in past posts to not support the Supreme Court's ruling on Citizen's United vs FEC.
From now on when liberals complain "Money is not free speech" I'm sure you will correct them about how this statement is inaccurate to the case The Court actually ruled on.
"Liberals hate freedom". "Liberals love abortion". "Liberals are Marxists". "Liberals don't have family values". "Liberals hate capitalism". "Liberals hate personal responsibility". The corporate media is the "liberal media". “Liberals are not real Americans”.
These complaints from the party that made this comercial and are claiming Republicans are waging a "war on women" simply because they do not want to force the Catholic Church to violate their religious beliefs via mandating them to pay for insurance which covers contraception? Is this hypocrisy or double think Dave? I'm getting confused where you stand on anything because in your blog posts you make statements and then when we question them you claim you never held those positions.
That's where I see the fascism.
And in that statement Dave, is where I see your socialism.
BTW, what is your party's excuse for not wanting to balance the federal budget? Clearly it does not as the Senate hasn't even passed a budget balanced or not in 3 years. I wouldn't want to get confused where you stand on the issue now would I?
Hey free,
What party is the only one to balance the budget in the last hundred years or so, only to have the other party take that balance budget and toss it in the toilet with massive tax cuts?
What is your excuse?
Hey Jerry,
That would be the Republican budgets of the late 1990s. Perhaps you're unaware, but spending bills originate in the House, and the balanced budgets started once Republicans won the House in the 1996 election.
How many times did the Democrats balance the budget after they won the House in 2006, 2007, 2008, and 2009? The Republicans won back the House in 2012 and have passed a budget the last two years.
What's your excuse?
Free,
Still giving it a spin, I see.
As you allude, CU v FEC was about more than movies. It overturned McCain Feingold. I don’t mind the movies part.
it was you who wants to make it illegal for movie companies to make political movies critical of candidates during an election season.
Nice try. You still fail to indicate where I said that. These are your words. Back them up, retract them, or be called out on your usual BS.
Your choice.
These complaints from the party
Do I sound like a corporatist moderate Right party to you? I’m not a democrat. Did you fail to read what I wrote again? I swear, a lot of what I say flies over your head. Perhaps you cannot handle the truth when it conflicts with your prejudiced pre-conceptions. You certainly sound like a Republican, though.
Not such a nice try, on what was perhaps the lamest false equivalence I’ve seen yet from you. Amazing. You mock the phrase, “war on women” as you engage in “war on religion” demagoguery. Hypocrisy, or double think? Hysterical at least, and totally Republican, either way.
simply because they do not want to force the Catholic Church to violate their religious beliefs
Ah, not so “simply” as you wish, lad. Is your world really that black and white and all FOXed up? You so sound like a Republican
What women know, and you ignore, is Planned Parenthood is defunded, and state Republicans are passing intrusive and invasive laws violating their privacy, rights, and dignity. Try talking to a woman sometime. Or do you already know what they all think too?
We can all see you’re cornered into simply being contrary for its own sake. That is as irrational as your belief that you know what I think.
Spin it all you want, Heathen, but Presidents propose budgets, Presidents sign budgets, Presidents get the credit, and Presidents get the blame.
It overturned McCain Feingold. I don’t mind the movies part.
You can't have it both ways Dave. Either CU got to make their movie and McCain Feingold was unconstitutional or they didn't and McCain Feingold was upheld. The Court didn't get to pick and choose. They had to rule, and they did. And it was the right decision. You have said time and again you don't think so. Whose the one spinning? Either you have a very dismal and uninformed opinion on the case and legal procedure and are taking your preferred pundits word for it (which is what I think you are doing) or you once again are engaging in massive double think. Like it or NOT, McCain Fiengold made it illegal to make a partisan political film during an election season. That is a blatant violation of the Constitution. The law you are here supporting shredded the First Amendment, and yet you still support it. You are either a Fascist because you agree with that sort of thing or you are taking at face value the word of pundits without having ever even read the legal opinion. This makes you either a fascist, or a moron being manipulated by the very "elites" you constantly complain about. Which one is it?
I’m not a democrat.
Doesn't matter, you support their policy and candidates. In fact you are more extreme in your progressivism than your average Democrat. Your problem with the Democrat party is that they aren't socialist enough for you. I get it.
Or do you already know what they all think too?
Don't need to, I have polling data.
Well if that is the case Jerry, than Obama is royally FUBAR as his last budget proposal was so inept, and fiscally irresponsible that his own party would even vote for it.
I sure sound like a typical Republican on Conservative blogs don't I?
What was the most "Republican" thing I said? Was it the part about destroying the Republican party or where I said I reject every one of their nominees during their primary and encouraged other Libertarians to do the same.
Now run along and pull the lever for Obama and be a good little Democrat, placing your stamp of approval on policy even liberal pundits find appalling.
They didn't cut spending enough to balance those tax cuts where were needed. There is no defense for that. They should have cut spending too.
Correction: 1994.
Free,
it was you who wants to make it illegal for movie companies to make political movies critical of candidates during an election season.
You still show no evidence of this.
You have said time and again you don't think so
What I’ve said time and again are my objections that CU v FEC allows undisclosed sources of "free speech" money in elections. The Constitution does not say those with the most money have more "free speech" than anyone else.
The Constitution does not define a corporation as a person or citizen. The CU v FEC decision supports this artificial personhood and corruption of “free speech”. These are the consequences and ramifications I disagree with.
Free speech can be abused by threats and perjury. If money is power as well as “free speech” it will be abused. I get it that campaign donations can be called political free speech. When it becomes corruption, ways should be found to reduce the influence of wealth in our elections. If we had public funded elections, I would not object to the CU decision. I know you don’t process nuance very well in your black and white world view.
Movies are another matter. The Constitution allows movies.
So where did I say I want to make movies illegal?
I didn't. This kind of selective out of context crap makes you sound like a Republican. Along with everything else I indicated above.
You really do live in a black and white world of absolutism if you think anyone approves of everything a candidate does after, or before, they vote for them. That absolutism makes you sound like a Republican.
I vote for Democrats because I disapprove of Republicans more. They do not represent anyone but the elites. You have not figured that out yet. Or you have, and you dislike democracy. Fine. That would make you a corporate mercenary more than a defender of the Constitution.
you support their policy and candidates.
There you go again. No, I think for myself. I am not a corporatist.
Your problem with the Democrat party is that they aren't socialist enough for you. I get it.
That’s better.
So why do you say “your party” and call me a Democrat? Call me a democratic socialist if you need to label me.
Democrat party makes you sound like a Republican.
There you go again. Does your “Libertari Party” all sound that ignorant and illiterate?
And what does that polling data tell you about what women think?
The problem with discussion with you is when I say something is gray, you insist it is either black or white. You need to stuff my rounded thinking into your little square box.
You still show no evidence of this.
Your whole blog is one big source for this, to include your last post.
What I’ve said time and again are my objections that CU v FEC allows undisclosed sources of "free speech" money in elections.
There are still controls on how much and by whom money can be donated. As evidence of this, simply try to write a check to any political candidate for 100,000 dollars. I know you don't have that much but it doesn't matter, they won't accept the check because it will violate federal election law so you don't have to sweat it. Don't you know this?
The bottom line is this: Had The Court sided with the FEC over Citizens' United, than their movie would not have been distributed. The government telling a private company they can't make a political movie? How is that free speech? It isn't. So, since you sided with FEC in the case, it's obvious you don't support Citizens' United's right to free speech= at least during an election cycle. Period. You can't have it both ways, you have to look at the case the way it is, not fantasy you have in your mind.
I get it that campaign donations can be called political free speech
The crux of the case was this... could Citizens' United's movie be considered a campaign donation because it was critical of Hillary Clinton? The Court said no... you are saying yes and no. Which is it?
So where did I say I want to make movies illegal?
When you've said time and again you wished The Court had ruled on the side of the FEC. It would have criminalized the distribution of Hillary The Movie during the Democrat party primary had FEC won the case.
This kind of selective out of context crap makes you sound like a Republican. Along with everything else I indicated above.
Your seemingly ignorant grasp of legal theory and ignorance of the case, it's briefs and it's written opinion make you sound like... oh why be mean?
There you go again. No, I think for myself. I am not a corporatist.
Now go pull the lever for Obama and indefinite detention without trial.
Democrat party makes you sound like a Republican.
Citizens' United vs FEC is a black or white issue. You either agree with McCain Fiengold and the FEC that Citizens' United making a movie critical of Hillary Clinton during the Democrat primary is subject to election law because it is a campaign contribution or you can agree with Citizens' United that they have a right to make any damn movie they please whenever they want and the FEC has no jurisdiction over them in any way so long as they don't write a check to a given candidate. You can't even grasp this arguement. Instead you bloviate about "Black and white." Well son, it's like this. Court cases are black and white. Up or down. Yes or no. Right or wrong. There isn't any middle ground. Either the FEC can tell movie companies what to do or it can't. You've said what? Some gobledygook about "Black/White."
That's because I've come to the conclusion you have no idea what you're talking about and just enjoy saying stuff like "Money isn't free speech" when it doesn't even apply to the case.
Still can't find my wanting that movie censored?
Maybe I never said so. But you know more about what I think than I do...
Now go pull the lever for Obama and indefinite detention without trial.
There you go again. Or would that be a vote against a dictatorship by the elite minority, another war based on lies, more torture, more Patriot Acts, and more deregulation of Big Money...and indefinite detention without trial?
Tough choice.
I told you I don’t care about your movie. That was merely the fulcrum, or crux, or the tipping point. The deeper ramifications are about what I stated. The bottom line is, the stupid movie is not the bottom line.
That's because I've come to the conclusion you have no idea what you're talking about and just enjoy saying stuff like "Money isn't free speech" when it doesn't even apply to the case.
FOX(R) even agrees with me.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/01/21/supreme-court-sides-hillary-movie-filmmakers-campaign-money-dispute/
Supreme Court Removes Limits on Corporate, Labor Donations to Campaigns
Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the main opinion, which reads in part that there is "no basis for allowing the government to limit corporate independent expenditures."
"There is no basis for the proposition that, in the political speech context, the government may impose restrictions on certain disfavored speakers," he wrote. "The government may regulate corporate speech through disclaimer and disclosure requirements, but it may not suppress that speech altogether."
Dissenters included Justices John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor.
"The notion that the First Amendment dictated [today's ruling] is, in my judgment, profoundly misguided," Stevens wrote for the others.
"In the context of election to public office, the distinction between corporate and human speakers is significant. Although they make enormous contributions to our society, corporations are not actually members of it," he added.
At least I can take comfort in knowing FOX(R) also has no idea what they’re talking about.
Or I am right when I say it’s about the money.
Free,
There are still controls on how much and by whom money can be donated. As evidence of this, simply try to write a check to any political candidate for 100,000 dollars.
Finally, you make a good point and botched it on a little. I will correct and perfect it for you out of a sense of altruism:
There are no prohibitive controls on how much and by whom money can be donated, so long as you donate it to a PAC that represents a candidate instead of to the candidate directly. Effectively, the money does the exact same thing, but as semantic point, it is completely different, and it is semantics, not the real world, that moves me and that should motivate all good conservatives. As evidence of this, simply try to write a check to any PAC for 100,000,000 dollars.
Nice try John, but the reality is- even this blog under the FEC's (and your) very open definition of a campaign contribution could be under the oversight of the FEC and eligible for censorship.
There you go again. Or would that be a vote against a dictatorship by the elite minority, another war based on lies, more torture, more Patriot Acts, and more deregulation of Big Money...and indefinite detention without trial?
Which of these are Obama against? Libya, "Rendition" which is simply the outsourcing of authentic by any definition torture, and bailouts of big banks who made bad bets... Obama is for all of these.
Now go pull the lever for him so that your hypocrisy can be complete.
I told you I don’t care about your movie.
The FEC did. You know them, they're the guys who you wanted to win in that court case where the company was going to make that movie.
FOX(R) even agrees with me.
And you say daily how stupid they are, so why should this source move me again?
You are suggesting Citizens' United vs FEC removed limits corporations or individuals can give to a political candidate. You are wrong. href="http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/contriblimits.shtml">Here are the limits.
Free,
Nice try John, but the reality is- even this blog under the FEC's (and your) very open definition of a campaign contribution could be under the oversight of the FEC and eligible for censorship.
Other than nice try your response did not even address my comment. It is like saying "Nice try, Free, but even on the warmest of days, it is still not warm enough to boil lobsters without additional heat."
However, thank you for acknowledging that it was a nice try and at once finding no flaw whatsoever with the analysis. As a very memorable man once told me, I will accept your gracious concession in the manner in which it was offered.
In CU vs FEC The Court was confronted with conflicting lines of precedent: a pre- Austin line forbidding speech restrictions based on the speaker’s corporate identity and a post- Austin line permitting them. The court ruled that the Austin decision was not based on precedent and struck it down, as it should have as it was not based on either precedent or law.
The Court found that the First Amendment prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for engaging in political speech, but Austin ’s antidistortion rationale would permit the Government to ban political speech because the speaker is an association with a corporate form. Political speech is “indispensable to decision making in a democracy, and this is no less true because the speech comes from a corporation.” Bellotti, supra, at 777.
This means that McCain Fiengold was in violation of Constitutional law and the basis for it's defense (Austin case) in court was not based on precedent - hence it had to be struck down per stare decisis.
First Amendment protections do not depend on the speaker’s “financial ability to engage in public discussion.” Buckley , supra, at 49. These conclusions were reaffirmed when the Court invalidated a BCRA provision that increased the cap on contributions to one candidate if the opponent made certain expenditures from personal funds. Davis vs FEC. Distinguishing wealthy individuals from corporations based on the latter’s special advantages of limited liability, does not suffice to allow laws prohibiting speech. It is irrelevant for First Amendment purposes that corporate funds may “have little or no correlation to the public’s support for the corporation’s political ideas.”
All speakers, including individuals and the media, use money amassed from the economic marketplace to fund their speech, and the First Amendment protects the resulting speech. The amount of money collected is irrelevant.
Under the antidistortion rationale, Congress could also ban political speech of media corporations. Although currently exempt, they accumulate wealth with the help of their corporate form, may have aggregations of wealth, and may express views “having little or no correlation to the public’s support” for those views. Differential treatment of media corporations and other corporations cannot be squared with the First Amendment , and there is no support for the view that the Amendment’s original meaning would permit suppressing media corporations’ political speech. McCain Fiengold interferes with the open marketplace of ideas protected by the First Amendment.
There John, chew on those semantics. I figured I'd spare you that... but what the hell... I guess that one year of law school finally came in handy.
Free,
This means that McCain Fiengold was in violation of Constitutional law and the basis for it's defense (Austin case) in court was not based on precedent - hence it had to be struck down per stare decisis.
Firstly, you don’t understand stare decisis. It is not legally binding, and is not generally revered by the Roberts Court. For a list of violations by the Roberts Court, read The Nine, which has a great summary. Incidentally, stare decisis is also discussed at some length in that book. Perhaps you should have read it during your year of law school.
Additionally, you need to stop appealing to yourself as a legal authority. The last time you did this at , I ran your logic by my brother, a real attorney who teaches Constitutional Law, and he said you were “full of hot air.” I also discussed your view via e-mail with Colin at Mad Mikes, a real attorney, who completely disagreed with your opinions and your legal authority. Again, I ran your theories by Lazeredge, an actually attorney, who disagreed with both your arguments and your credentials. I will listen to your arguments, but they must stand on their own merits, and not on the purported authority of your law career. Everyone I ever mention your legal credentials to has a belly laugh.
Secondly, by “the Court,” you mean the newly conservative court ruled per their ideology, and I agree.
There John, chew on those semantics
And again, I say that that paying money toward someone’s election is the same act regardless of if you pay the campaign representing them or if you pay a PAC representing them. You choose semantics over the real-world. You should argue what you believe for the reason you believe it. Whether you think this issue is Constitutional has nothing to do with your position on it. You are using that for your red-herring justification. Notice that in the decision all the most admirable justices disagree with you. Of course, they lack your exact legal training, so I can imagine how they could have got confused. You are an authority and they are simply justices.
P. S.
You would do well to stop claiming authority you don’t have as a means to “prove” your point. It is fallacious to use authority to prove a point at all, but all the more so when you don’t actually have the authority. You are not an attorney, nor do you understand law better than the average person here.
For the record, the last time you tried to make your argument about your authority, you ended up coming unglued. To refresh your memory on this very comical event, see here:
Free Claims to be Legal Authority.
You have to read deep into the comments, but it is so hilarious that it is well worth the read.
Thanks for the reference John. I needed a good laugh today.
Free,
Your passionate intensity in contrariness for its own sake has forced me into a win/win box. Either I was correct, or FOX(R) is wrong. Thanks.
John,
Thank you for the illuminating and entertaining reference to Mr. Free’s impressive credentials. As I have decades of experience working with jailhouse lawyers, not to mention lawyer friends, perhaps I may also presume to claim a certain high legal authority.
He has made the same point elsewhere in this blog as in your animated exchange:
John:
The obligation of the state is to represent its citizens
Constitutional law Authority:
NEGATIVE. The obligation of the State is rule of law. That supreme law is the United States Constitution and I think you've confused "promote the general welfare" with "PROVIDE the general welfare."
Am I just being too persnickety when I present these odd little words in my “Unauthoritzed-by-Constitutional-law-Authority-Free” version of the Constitution?
Section 8
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;
I have even more respect for Mr. Free as our residential Constitutional law authority in light of the fact he doesn’t need to actually read the Constitution.
Well John, you know who does agree with my legal theory? 5 Supreme Court Justices. I'm pretty sure they're lawyers.
And I'm sure they'd have a nice belly laugh at your attorney pals. I may not be a lawyer, but clearly in this small pond, I'm the big fish.
As for my opinion on section 8, when have I ever said the Federal Government doesn't have the right to levy taxes? Or even that they should not exercise that authority? We may have argued about percentage or who pays said percentage- but never that taxation is unconstitutional. I even argued on this blog that since the individual mandate is unconstitutional (something dave agreed with) Democrats only option would be to attempt to pass legislation that set up a national health service- which would be legal. A really bad idea, but legal.
I've told you what I think Dave, on this post and the last one. But you seem to have forgotten. Too busy campagining for Obama I suppose.
I've told you what I think Dave, on this post and the last one. But you seem to have forgotten.
Projection?
Too busy campaigning for Obama I suppose.
Projection indeed.
Free,
And I'm sure they'd have a nice belly laugh at your attorney pals. I may not be a lawyer, but clearly in this small pond, I'm the big fish.
You are no bigger than any other fish in this pond. You are no more knowledgeable, persuasive or logical. You are more opinionated, but that does not increase your size. You are the only one who asserts legal credentials in their absence. The problem is, we ALL know real people with real attorneys (in my case, quite a large number) with real legal credentials who laugh at your fake ones and who disagree with your legal philosophy. As for the five justices who agree with you, they are in the vast minority, I suspect. The bulk of justices on the bench have been more liberal, less hypocritical, more rational.
Perhaps you should argue what you believe for the reason you believe it, and use that method of persuasion, as that is what persuades you, right? Instead, you make the center of your argument fake credentials. If you had been trained as an attorney, that fact would not lend power to your opinion. You will still have to support it with logic or it would be rejected here. You fundamental approach is fallacious.
re: John Myste, on Free's Legal Authority>
I went and checked it out... //I'll take my bachelors in Political Science and laugh confident in my superiority.//
We used to say that a Poly Sci major qualified someone to me a semi-articulate bartender...or a used car salesman. It is doubtful that Free would excel at either profession.
WTH? Blogger keeps posting funny.
Anywhoo-
We used to say that a Poly Sci major qualified someone to me a semi-articulate bartender...or a used car salesman. It is doubtful that Free would excel at either profession.
Very true. I have to admit I'm far better at being a Soldier (or a law student, legal secretary or court clerk) than I would be selling cars or mixing drinks. I have zero experience with either bar tending or car salesmanship, unlike my actual specialties which are governmental policy and small unit tactics. Though I do find both fine professions.
As for lawyers who would agree with my opinion, I have five supreme court justices. That's not counting the court of different eras who decided the Davis and Bellotti cases. Which I only brought up of course, to source the "semantics" you complained I was using. Call me crazy, but I don't think actual case precedent is semantic... but pretty much the heart and soul of our legal system and set out to prove so. Since you switched from that line to the ad-hom line of strategy here, I'm guessing I was successful. So grand total anyway, something like 9 Supreme Court Justices like my reasoning. How many of your lawyer pals John, are one the highest court in the land? Perhaps you can trot them out one by one and I can debate with them? That way someone would argue an actual law instead of sniveling about "semantics" or getting confused about what CU vs FEC was actually about, or complaining I'm not an actual attorney. I'm closer to being an actual attorney than you are John, and unlike you I had to sit through legal research classes and Constitutional Law.
Free,
hat's not counting the court of different eras who decided the Davis and Berlotti cases. So grand total, something like 9 Supreme Court Justices like my reasoning. How many of you lawyer pals John are one the highest court in the land?
So, you scrounged up 9 justices of 112 that you believe may side with your opinion. Impressive.
Perhaps you can trot out one of your lawyer pals John and I can debate with them?
Funny, I tried hard to set that up during our Saving Common Sense debates, and you ran like hell. Perhaps you will recall that. I made the offer three times, and three times you declined.
That way perhaps someone would argue an actual law instead of sniveling about "semantics" or getting confused about what CU vs FEC was actually about.
I was trying to get you to say what you believe for the reason you believe it instead of debating your justifying red-herrings. What the conservative court ruled does not prove what it should rule or why.
The fact is that the Court prior to 2005 would have ruled the other way, as you know. You are arguing that the sitting court, though it deviates from the most of the intellectual history of the court, just happens to be right; and to cement your proof, you argue that you served donuts to bailiffs.
I'm closer to being an actual attorney than you are John, and unlike you I had to sit through legal research classes and Constitutional Law.
We are equally close to being an attorney.
Last time you threw out this nonsense I mentioned it to my brother, who teaches Constitutional law. He reviewed the site and informed me that you were not worth his time (which he had very little of at the time), unlike the attorneys at MMA, who I think were willing, but you declined. Perhaps you have had one of my brother’s courses, but “did not so good.”
If you are going to argue that your legal credentials justify your inane opinions, you really need to make your case at MMA. Last time you made this the gist of your argument, I was an active member of MMA. I wrote articles about legal issues there and had them critiqued by attorneys. One of the attorney’s, who teaches criminal law on the side, used one of my articles in his class. Since that time, unfortunately, I left the site. It is unfortunate because at the time I had the power to get you to post your rebuttal and legal opinion for the attorneys there to peruse.
Perhaps you recall? Remember how I pointed out that you should want to do this because you would have more people read your wisdom the first day than have visited your blog since it opened? I made the offer three times, and three times you declined. For someone confident in his opinion and for someone who wanted it challenged by legal colleagues, you sure seemed reluctant to do it, even when I volunteered to make it happen, with no effort on your part. All you had to do was compose the piece.
Very odd. Again, I advise you to not use your legal authority as a justification for anything. It serves only to embarrass you in the end.
I was trying to get you to say what you believe for the reason you believe it
Fine. I "believe" it because it is. Clearly the majority opinion on the case exists. As to the more important question- Is it correct in law? I believe it is. Another important question- Why did they rule correctly? The answer is to defend free speech. The why behind that answer is because free speech is an absolute right as laid down by our laws, and I'm glad the legal authority confirmed that.
If you are going to argue that your legal credentials justify your inane opinions
If it makes you feel better I pretty much share Justice Scalia's opinions. You can pretend you're arguing him since it's his written opinion I'm defending anyway. As for articles you wrote, I helped write judicial opinions for the a Michigan Circuit Court. This could be why I'm so good at reading them, beyond a very basic grasp of the English language. Cornell does a pretty good job of posting legal opinions online. How bout instead of you trying to start a legal knowledge dick measuring contest, you actually go read the opinions offered for CU v FEC. I think before you can compare your knowledge to mine, you had at least present a legal arguement beyond crying "semantics." You can start with answering a basic question: How does the Austin caselaw outweigh the two cases I cited in regards to the unconstitutionality of McCain Fiengold.
As for visiting your friends blogs, I already write for Blonde Sagacity and have quite a Facebook following. That takes up plenty of my time as it is.
Oh and BTW how do you figure over a hundred judges ruled on the four cases in question. I think before you go making legal arguements John you might want to revisit kindergarten math. Specifically addition.
I helped write judicial opinions for the a Michigan Circuit Court.
You just made that up. I know this because you would have “used” that in your prior arguments when you argued legal authority by virtue of you fetching of coffee for bailiffs. When we discuss the poor gaming the system, you make up that you have personally seen thousands (or whatever hyperbole you choose that day). When we speak of events in foreign lands, you make up that your experience is far more vast than most career soldiers and you have seen [insert whatever you wish you had seen here]. It is as if you don’t realize the problem with anecdotal reasoning. You should make arguments based on reason to the best of your ability. You don’t need to pretend to have seen and done whatever you think just fits. The irony of it all is, that if you were not making things up, that fact would not improve your argument, but you think it would, so you continue inventing.
How bout instead of you trying to start a legal knowledge dick measuring contest, you actually go read the opinions offered for CU v FEC.
I believe you started this contest. I never claimed legal authority. You claimed that, and I refuted the claim. I have read tons of Supreme Court opinions and dissents, listened to actual records of actual cases, quite a few. Your “lesson” is not needed.
. I think before you can compare your knowledge to mine, you had at least present a legal arguement beyond crying "semantics."
Bu.. bu… bu.. what if “semantics” is the real difference? Also, again, I never compared my knowledge to yours. You compared yours to mind as a justification for your opinion, remember?
You can start with answering a basic question: How does the Austin caselaw outweigh the two cases I cited in regards to the unconstitutionality of McCain Fiengold.
Precedent is not binding and I believe the case was resolved on ideology, and I know that the Roberts Court rejects precedence in favor of ideology on a regular basis, which even Breyer, who is not mired by precedent as you seem to be, finds ethically offensive. I challenge the ideology because ideology was used to decide this and all cases in the Roberts Court. Why do you bring up something as irrelevant as precedent?
As for visiting your friends blogs, I already write for Blonde Sagacity and have quite a Facebook following. That takes up plenty of my time as it is.
I am familiar with that site. It is not in the same league with MMA. I was trying to point you to a high volume blog largely dominated by attorneys who can challenge your legal knowledge. You want that, right? I cannot imagine why you would reject something like that. During the debates on the Fictitious Debt Crisis I found it liberating to vent there, even though I knew my opinion would not be totally welcomed. If I could have found a high volume conservative site to vent at, I probably would have done so. I offered you a high volume cite to vent at with no effort whatsoever, where you could display your in depth comprehension of the law before everyone, and you declined. It makes no sense.
Oh and BTW how do you figure over a hundred judges ruled on the four cases in question. I think before you go making legal arguements John you might want to revisit kindergarten math. Specifically addition.
I was not aware of how important addition is to legal questions. I will get my abacus out right now and study law, which may not work, but it will probably be as effective as serving coffee to thirsty bailiffs.
Sir John Myste, i bet your dog is also bigger than Free's!
Just, funny thing. My blog is almost exactly the same size as my monitor. It's crazy.
You just made that up
How many times did I tell you I was a court clerk... what do you think people who clerk for a Judge do besides get coffee? I'm not saying I wrote the things, but I did shepardize most of my judges opinions, and wrote a lot of the boring parts. I of course read ALL OF THEM and had to read a hell of a lot more cases of source material. Like your brother... my MOTHER passed the bar when I was 17. My mom... is lawyer. I was an intern at the country prosecutors after lunch in high school my Jr. and Sr. year where she worked as a paralegal during her time in law school. After my time in the Marines, I was a court bailiff and also served as court clerk... while attending both college and law school. I have told you this. What do you think I was doing in that four years after I ended active service from the Marines? Sleeping? If you want to ask someone, you can head on over to Blonde Sagacity and talk to any of the people there. I was writing for her way back then... during my time as working for the court. You can attack the source all you want... it isn't helping your arguement... which you have yet to make... and I'm starting to think you are incapable of making.
Precedent is not binding
Not all the time no... just most of the time if you are a lower court and don't want to be overturned on appeal. Granted that isn't a concern of a Justice... but you can't cry when a judge does judge-like stuff like the oh so radical act of considering precedent in law... If that shallow and weak arguement is the best you've got guy your lawyer friends are going to laugh at you. I happen to think a Judge who rules on precedent happens to be more effective than one who rules on whim. I'll spare you a class on the theory of Common Law and just chalk that one up to blind ignorance.
I know that the Roberts Court rejects precedence in favor of ideology on a regular basis
And you know this how?
It is not in the same league with MMA.
This affects my commitment to Blonde Sagacity how?
I was not aware of how important addition is to legal questions.
Well last I checked since 1869 we've had 9 Supreme Court Justice positions. This stands to reason during all four cases we've discussed there could be no more than a maximum of 36 Justices during those cases... and I must admit I haven't researched it but on a few of them some of those Justices get counted twice. You mentioned something like 112... now whose making stuff up.
I have read tons of Supreme Court opinions
Have you read CU v FEC or not? This is a yes or no question.
I never compared my knowledge to yours. You compared yours to mind as a justification for your opinion, remember?
I see... I'm supposed to use non-knowledge to formulate opinions.
As for articles you wrote, I helped write judicial opinions for the a Michigan Circuit Court.
I'm not saying I wrote the things,…
Not all the time no... just most of the time if you are a lower court and don't want to be overturned on appeal.
it isn't helping your arguement... which you have yet to make...
That I the silliest contradictory sentence I have ever seen you help write.
Precedent is not binding
Not all the time no... just most of the time if you are a lower court and don't want to be overturned on appeal.
Never and we are talking about a Supreme Court decision.
I happen to think a Judge who rules on precedent happens to be more effective than one who rules on whim.
The Robert’s Court does not rule on precedent, so I am not sure what your real point is.
I'll spare you a class on the theory of Common Law
The fact that you repeatedly speak of class is funny, as every time I see attorney’s comment on it, they say class is NOTHING like the real world. As an attorney, I am sure you know this already, of course. I just read another article lamented this very fact a few days ago. I think you are getting most of your data from Paper Chase.
And you know this how?
It started with The Nine, which I still encourage you to read. From there, I researched a very large number of individual cases (and listened to live recordings). Also, I wish I could find the quote for you, but Scalia admitted it. He said that The Roberts Court overturns precedents in all but name only and he lamented that the Court was dishonest about it, instead of just coming and admitted that the law is changing. As a Scalia pupil, I am sure you are familiar with the quote. No reason for me to find it for you.
Here is from a Washington Post article: "The majority is wrong," Breyer said. "It's not often in law that so few have changed so much so quickly."
The charge of ignoring or twisting precedent stings, because it is essentially an accusation that the conservatives have abandoned the judicial restraint that they so often preach, in pursuit of policy results they favor.
I would go find the cases where the protection of a women’s health, guns near schools, and due process of captives. I am sure you are familiar with them already, though, as an observant attorney. In these cases no new evidence was presented, but as Ginsberg noted, the only thing that changed in the personnel on the court. As an attorney, I am sure you are very familiar with Ginsberg’s rants as well.
It is not in the same league with MMA.
This affects my commitment to Blonde Sagacity how?
My statement was only to show that it is odd that you rejected, three times, my kind MMA offer.
You mentioned something like 112... now whose making stuff up.
As an attorney, I assume that number would be meaningful to you. I guess not. Can you get me some coffee and donuts, please?
I have read tons of Supreme Court opinions
Have you read CU v FEC or not? This is a yes or no question.
I don't think I read the opinions released in this case. I could be wrong. I have read about a number of times. I don't remember reading the official decisions. Have you culled some data I am unaware of that makes you think it was the right decision?
I never compared my knowledge to yours. You compared yours to mind as a justification for your opinion, remember?
I see... I'm supposed to use non-knowledge to formulate opinions.
I do not know how to respond that that non-sequiter.
You consistently claim legal authority and I reject your claim. That's all. I reject it as fallacious as a debating tactic if you had it, and as false, since you don't.
As an award-winning logician you should easily be able to look up the problem with using your personal experience toting coffee as your main justification for your philosophy.
Sorry bout all the spaces, I don't know WTF is up with blogger.
//Fine. I "believe" it because it is.//
Boy& Howdy!!!!! That really really nails it down!! ;)
....and after all my years of selling lubricating oil and services to the power generating industry.... oh oh... I am a mechanical engineer!!
Hey John Myste,
I know you are an expert on arguments and have written many bestsellers on the subject. I remember all those posts of yours to educate a poor red stater like myself.
I am working on one now:
Broccoli is good for you.
The General Welfare clause in the Constitution says the Government has the responsibility to provide good things for its citizens.
Therefore the Government can force me to buy Broccli.
John, do you think this is a valid argument? If not, please explain in simple terms without all the socratic waffling I see in a lot of your posts.
RedStateFred: "...please explain in simple terms without all the socratic waffling..."
"Socratic"...that's a pretty big word for you, isn't it? After all, it's three syllables. Do you know what it means?
I saw that you slandered me on The Heathen Republican's blog several months ago (although "slandered" only has two syllables, I'll interpret for you, anyway, in words you'll better understand -- "bad-mouthed"). You didn't even have the fortitude to confront me directly. Since that day, I realized you're not only ignorant, but you don't have any balls either.
Actually, my utter apologies. I thought I was targeting Red State and my salvo hit Jefferson. I am so sorry. I misinterpreted the speaker.
Redstate,
I know you are an expert on arguments and have written many bestsellers on the subject. I remember all those posts of yours to educate a poor red stater like myself.
I am working on one now:
Broccoli is good for you.
You are not working on that argument. I have seen this hyperbole many places. You are mindlessly parroting it. I don't speak parrot very well. Do you have a logical argument related to anything we are discussing are you wanting to change the subject and discuss the General Welfare Clause?
I have discussed this quite a bit. It is a large topic and to even discuss it with you I would have to educate you on the current liberal rational for it on the Supreme Court (that is, the two members who actively show concern about it anymore).
Suffice it to say, Constitutional philosophy is separate from Constitutional justifications, which is what the liberal interpretation (and the conservative one mostly) of the General Welfare Clause is.
Both sides claim Original Intent in their interpretation of this clause and both sides make a good argument. Ensuring the original intent of the overall concept of democracy, the will of the people, what Stephen Breyer terms "Active Liberty" is one interpretation; and a narrow definition, such as Scalia is famous for, is another.
I recommend Stephen Breyer's Active Liberty to help you understand the clause with more profundity then the parroting of broccoli; and for the conservative argument, I recommend A Matter of Interpretation by Antonin Scalia. They both make unassailable cases that are diametrically opposed to each other: both very good books.
I would enjoy discussing the issue with you more, once you understand the philosophies and rationales of each side better.
If repeating the broccoli argument is where you are (which Scalia did as hyperbole), then you are not properly prepared to have real discussion. When Scalia brings up broccoli and other things, he is entertaining us by exaggerating a real point, as he always does when he debates. I like Scalia and I respect him as a thinker, even though I disagree with his philosophy. I never, never, never, confuse his satire as the gist of his logical argument.
Now, my philosophical opinion is not the same as the liberal side, historically represented by Justice Breyer, or the conservative side, often represent by Justice Scalia. I don’t care what the Founders, blessed be He, intended. It is irrelevant and does not promote democracy to care. That is my philosophical question.
I have primarily discussion the philosophical interpretation. There is also a legal question. There is also a legal justification. Again, this is a very large topic. I haven’t the time or the current interest to dive deeply back in.
Thank you for your continuing interest in my personal opinion on matters.
Redstate,
OK, I confess that I am jackass.
Your comment did not really warrant my response either. I apologize. I am going to let it stand, because to remove it I would have to write another that says the same thing, but more delicately.
My apologies.
Please don't hurt me.
John,
You play the scalpel like a finely tuned instrument.
Both sides claim Original Intent in their interpretation
Not true, many of us claim a textualist interpretation. That however is four syllables, hence the use of the term might seem unfair. without all the socratic waffling heh heh. Yeah, ain't that the truth. I'm stealing that one. Oh lord, what would we all do without the amateur philosophy professor lol.
Free,
As an attorney, I would expect you to know this, but Scalia advocates a textualist approach combined with original intent. He DOES NOT say the text stands alone, as its meaning has evolved over time.
Please site your source of a justice who advocates pure textual interpretation without consideration of intent.
As for the charge of Socratic waffling, I am a fan of Plato (or Socrates if you ascribe to that), but not a follower. I tend not to use the Socratic method in most debates, though I do think it is very effective, because has any good chess player will tell you "initiative" is important.
I am unclear as to why you guys keep alluding to the number of syllables words have. Adults don't usually do this and to equate complexity with word length is philosophically childish.
Jefferson,
I didn't post the comment on your blog because, lets face it, nobody reads it and there's only mindless parotted anti-corporation banter between you and Anna.
John Myste,
You are very good in your long winded posts at projecting exceptional intelligence that you don't have. It is typical of people who think they are so smart that they have the right to be in that elite group of social engineers in Washington who know whats best for the ignorant red staters like myself. You are a narcissist like Barry and Nancy Pelosi suffering from the disease of "Fatal Conceit". A delicate response from you isn't required.
Jimmy Critter and OK Jimmy,
Its OK that you swallow hook, line, and sinker the Socialist bullshit that Barry reads off his teleprompter. The guy has never had a real job in his life and is clueless about what it takes to run a business in the private sector. Look at why Queen Michelle has spent so much money on vacations. The answer is that other people's money is so much more easy to spend than your own.
JG,
At least trolls seem to love your blog. Actually reading it is another matter.
John,
Thoughtful words and ideas are not welcome in “socialist teleprompter” bumper sticker land.
And we should stop “oppressing” those red states with our “red state” socialism.
States receiving the most federal funding per tax dollar paid:
1. New Mexico: $2.63
2. West Virginia: $2.57
3. Mississippi: $2.47
4. District of Colombia: $2.41
5. Hawaii: $2.38
6. Alabama: $2.03
7. Alaska: $1.93
8. Montana: $1.92
9. South Carolina: $1.92
10. Maine: $1.78
Jerry and okjimm,
Yes, why don’t you want us to go back to the perfect economy the MBA president left us in the fall of ’08? You socialists must really hate America. Bush knew all about how to run a business... with other people’s money. He started wars he didn’t pay for and give the war profiteers tax cuts. The icing on the MBA presidency cake was record debts and deficits for someone else to clean up. Now that’s a keen business mind.
RedState,
You are very good in your long winded posts at projecting exceptional intelligence that you don't have.
It is very gracios of you to acknowledge my virtues, even though our political philosophies differ so.
Tit for tat: I think you are great at being conservative
It is typical of people who think they are so smart that they have the right to be in that elite group of social engineers in Washington who know whats best for the ignorant red staters like myself.
I think you may be confusing intelligence with well-rounded knowledge. I don’t think I am at the level of most of the posters on this site when well-rounded knowledge is the criterion. I freely admit that I am in awe of some of the posters knowledge of a great many things here, including the site moderator himself. If intelligence is the criterion, however, then, yes, I do believe I merit a place here. I hope that my faith is not narcissism-based, but if it is, I have no way of knowing, and I will certainly take it. It feels good.
You are a narcissist like Barry and Nancy Pelosi suffering from the disease of "Fatal Conceit"
Firstly, thank you for including me in such an elite intellectual group. While I don’t believe I have earned the position, I am certainly flattered.
Secondly, I do not believe they suffer from fatal conceit for two reasons: one, the conceit has served them well and two, conceit is not terminal.
Its OK that you swallow hook, line, and sinker the Socialist bullshit that Barry reads off his teleprompter.
I think we are all part-socialist and part-capitalist. If either extreme dominates, we suffer as a group. I know you would not want that, as you are a caring, compassionate, intellectual conservative.
The guy has never had a real job in his life and is clueless about what it takes to run a business in the private sector.
Thank God he was not hired to do that then.
Look at why Queen Michelle has spent so much money on vacations. The answer is that other people's money is so much more easy to spend than your own.
While trying to come up with a clever parody of this statement, I realized the statement itself sufficed as one.
John Myste,
For the record, I concede that you are smarter than I.
I noticed that you are a fan of Plato whom I have some familiarity from College (a college not as good as yours of course but probably better than Daves and Jerry Critters) but in no way understand as well as you.
Would it be a "socially just" society to divide it into three classes? Would the people naturally accept it or would coersion be required (i.e. an Iron Fist)?
Lets say we had the 3 classes with members who post on this blog:
The Guardian class consisting of the philosopher kings such as yourself and Jefferson's Guardian who possess superior intellect.
The Auxiliary class of soldiers and enforcers who ensure that the dictates of reasons from the philosopher kings such as you John Myste are obeyed by all of society. Free could be a member of this class.
The worker class of simple laborers pulling the wagon like Red State Fred, Dave Dubya, and Jerry Critters.
Do you think the above would be a "socially just" society? My guess is it would on the outside if enough dissenters were drowned in the river by the Auxiliary class.
"philosopher kings such as... Jefferson's Guardian who possess superior intellect."
Ah ha ha ha ha ha! LOLOLOLOLOL. I can't stop! That's the funniest thing I've ever heard.
There are literally tears running down my face. Have you ever read a thing Jefferson has written? He's the biggest fool in this place!
The man can only echo Dave and hasn't had an original thought since grade school. OMG.
LOL! Good one Red State.
Thanks Heathen,
I've gotten used to Jefferson's Guardian going off on tangents and having a rant of his own, e.g.:
"Socratic"...that's a pretty big word for you, isn't it? After all, it's three syllables. Do you know what it means?
At least John Myste pointed out that his remark was childish. Thanks John. That was my interpretation of your comment. If that was not your original intent, lets set the record staight without any socratic waffling.
Jefferson mainly parrots his hero Chris Hedges and like you say has very limited original thought. The world takes all kinds and we should accept Jefferson for who he is.
This will be my last post for now as I'm off to an OWS event lol.
I have one last question for you John Myste. If society was organized as Plato suggested and you were a philosopher king, as a member of the worker class of simple laborers would I be paid the same as the Auxiliary class of soldiers and enforcers?
If you are paying the Auxiliary class on a per drowning basis, I would like to switch to that group. I'm sure Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot must have had a similar pay structure.
RedState,
Note: this was my comment before you last comment, which I see now. So, you are not trying to lay a surreptitious trap, as I believed, but an over one. I must say that I should respect that more, but for some reason I respect it less:
For the record, I concede that you are smarter than I.
For the record, I do not make that claim.
Would it be a "socially just" society to divide it into three classes? Would the people naturally accept it or would coersion be required (i.e. an Iron Fist)? Lets say we had the 3 classes with members who post on this blog:
The Guardian class consisting of the philosopher kings such as yourself and Jefferson's Guardian who possess superior intellect.
Firstly, you have clearly read The Republic, though you are trying to play it off as you have but a passing inkling of who Plato is. I believe you are now trying to distort the concept of a socialist protectorate government with Platonic theory to force me into a specific known paradigm with known parameters you feel prepared to challenge. Either I embrace a caste system or I don’t. Either I am socialist or I am not. I fundamentally disagree with my interpretation of your intention. “Either I am a socialist or I am not” is a fanatic view, and a false one. I do not live in a philosophical world of absolutes.
If I had time to flush this out, I would play along, because your strategic tactic is quite intriguing, though less than forthcoming. I like it: a gradual bate, that forces your opponent to see his “socialist” vision through a paradigm he probably rejects. You are certainly not stupid, sir. Again, I would allow you to draw me into this line of reasoning, this trap, with the intention of fighting my way back out, if I had more time. It would be fun. I find your direction unique, innovative and very interesting. I may even end up making some kind of concession to you. Alas, we shall never know.
Addendum:
I have one last question for you John Myste. If society was organized as Plato suggested and you were a philosopher king, as a member of the worker class of simple laborers would I be paid the same as the Auxiliary class of soldiers and enforcers?
Redstate, I am a capitalist. I believe that all Americans have the right to excel without a ceiling. I also believe that all Americans should be guaranteed basic needs if they cannot succeed; among them: healthcare, shelter, food, and respect. I am glad that is your last post, not because I don’t enjoy conversing with you, but because my “entitlement theory” is not quick. I have to first debunk the conservative theory, which takes time, as it has many points of rubbish. I don’t have time for such a subject change.
I do not want or embrace fanaticism or categorical imperatives of any kind. I consider a government motivated purely by capitalism to be destructive, divisive, and deviant. I consider a government motivated purely by socialism to be the exact same thing. I abhor fanaticism and faith in categorical anything, wherever I find it, on the left or on the right.
Again, thank you for your continuing interest in my personal opinions.
When you and Jefferson were in grade school, what was the thought you interpreted as original, anyway?
Clearly you have personal issues with Jefferson, as it is uncharacteristic of you to go on a mini ranting attack purely unprovoked.
If he had never made you feel challenged at all, I doubt this level of passion for attack would exist.
Why can't we just all get along?
You forgot the endless parroting of Rachel Maddow and formerly Kieth Olbermann before MSNBC cooked up an excuse to fire that ratings black hole of a time vampire. Also of note are the parroting of whatever new headlines are topics for discussion at Democratic Underground. I'm afraid Daily Kos might be a touch too complicated with political math for them...
Free,
I tried to check out his blog. I could not find it, but make sure you have an eye doctor handy before you go his profile.
I am sorry to inform you that Fred is not the inventor of the term "philosopher kings," or the philosophy he is attempting to commingle with the concept of socialism and the General Welfare Clause.
Free,
If John Myste was in charge with Jefferson like in Plato's Republic it looks he would not pay everyone the same, judging by one of his last posts.
In that case, I think I would better off joining you in the Auxiliary class. My standard of living would be much higher being paid per head drowned in the river as there would be an endless supply of dissenters to the philosopher kings lol.
RedStateFred, The Heathen Republican, and last, but not least, the Honorable Judge Free0352...
Thank you gentlemen! ;-) All of you have confirmed and validated everything I believe in and support. I couldn't do what I do, without you. You make it all possible.
John Myste: "Why can't we just all get along?"
John, your irony, with a splash of sarcasm, wasn't lost on me. ;-)
John Myste,
Suffice it to say, Constitutional philosophy is separate from Constitutional justifications, which is what the liberal interpretation (and the conservative one mostly) of the General Welfare Clause is.
Not sure what this fluffy statement means. I understand for you liberals that your interpretation of the Constitution is like that old Burger King commercial "Have It Your Way" which changes like the wind.
(and the conservative one mostly) - huh ???
I wonder Sir John if your meaning of the word "is" would be just as cloudy as Slick Willies lol.
Firstly, thank you for including me in such an elite intellectual group. While I don’t believe I have earned the position, I am certainly flattered.
I included you in a group of narcissists who believe they are brilliant. Barry is brilliant enough to have sealed his records. If the same percent of people looking for work today was the same when Barry took office, unemployment would be over 10 percent. Clearly, the trickle down centrally planned stimulus plan failed.
Redstate, I am a capitalist. I believe that all Americans have the right to excel without a ceiling. I also believe that all Americans should be guaranteed basic needs if they cannot succeed; among them: healthcare, shelter, food, and respect. I am glad that is your last post, not because I don’t enjoy conversing with you, but because my “entitlement theory” is not quick. I have to first debunk the conservative theory, which takes time, as it has many points of rubbish. I don’t have time for such a subject change.
Sir John, Plato's Totalitarian Republic run by philosopher-kings which tries to achieve social harmony by emphasizing collective interests while rejecting individual interests is rubbish.
Again, thank you for your continuing interest in my personal opinions.
Your welcome Sir John. I get a kick out of people who write as if they are an authority but their posts are more fluff than substance.
Fred Said:
I understand for you liberals that your interpretation of the Constitution is like that old Burger King commercial "Have It Your Way" which changes like the wind.
Really?
Then you are debating your own false pre-conception of what liberals think. We see a lot of that from the radical Right.
As I stated previously in this thread, you guys amaze me.
Do Righties know this?
They incorrectly, and routinely, assume what liberals think. No wonder there's so much animosity. Their cult has all the answers, and knows what everyone else thinks. Amazing to say the least. And that’s not narcissistic, how?
"Liberals hate freedom". "Liberals love abortion". "Liberals are Marxists". "Liberals don't have family values". "Liberals hate capitalism". "Liberals hate personal responsibility". The corporate media is the "liberal media". “Liberals are not real Americans”.
On and on and on this propaganda goes.
No wonder the cult of conned-servatves think liberals are destroying America.
That's what they are indoctrinated to believe.
Ever wonder who would want such indoctrination pushed through corporate media, and why?
Dave,
That is a lame rebuttal. Why don't you just erase it?
Oh, I disagree, I think Dave's right on the money...
RedState,
Your welcome Sir John. I get a kick out of people who write as if they are an authority but their posts are more fluff than substance.
I get a kick out of these people also! As I claim not to be an authority, and merely to have a philosophical opinion, such people make easy targets. Finally, something we agree upon!
Oh, and I am confused as to why you keep bringing up The Republic in this discussion when I have already renounced that trap.
The philospher-king with the superior intellect says Progressivism has nothing in common with Plato's Republic. lol "enlightened" one.
I guess it must be my imagination that more progressive power is being concentrated in Washington violating the Constitution such as forcing me to engage in commerce or Federal agencies passing regulations that should be voted on in congress.
Jefferson, do you want a cracker?
Thanks Dave,
I am a libertarian and am glad you did not include me with the KKK or a Neo-Nazi group. I believe political power should be distributed amongst the States and not concentrated in Washington. Thanks also for not calling me a Fascist.
Jefferson, Do you want a cracker?
Fred,
As a constitutional federal republic, power is concentrated in Washington. The powers of taxation, war, justice, commerce regulation etc. can only be in Washington. The states still have plenty of power. The war on drugs is but one example. As a libertarian you may notice how local government is often trampled in matters of medical marijuana and low enforcement priority. Both the states and the feds are guilty of that. Follow the money for the reasons why.
Fascist is how I see those who emulate fascists, by the typical red-baiting, lies, false accusations, racism, threats, hate, and other forms of right wing extremism. Examples abound and are noted.
As a socialist inclined, civil libertarian, I am pro-democracy and pro-capitalism. Albeit not in the eyes of those “libertarians” who believe a corporation is a person entitled to more rights than we the people. The open and free exercise of the principles of democracy is far more essential to our liberty than un-regulated corporate power with its dominance of our politics, media and government.
I don’t like the mandated purchase of health insurance from corporations either. I prefer a public option, single payer, or a Medicare for all system. I think the benefits of expanded health care will help ameliorate the problems of many people despite the minor damage to our liberties. I don’t see the health care laws as damaging to out Constitution as the Patriot Act and other measures.
“Progressive power” is becoming an oxymoron. Forcing people to give money to corporations is not exactly “progressive”. The interests of the people have become less represented than those of Big Money in our corrupted system.
I’m fairly sure this was not the founders’ intent, nor that of most Americans.
While you imagine a great concentration of “progressive power”, look at the other side of the coin. Right Wing power violating the Constitution is being concentrated in many states, such as the forcing women to undergo unwanted, privacy invading, medical procedures, and otherwise controlling their bodies. Right Wing power is demanding the unconstitutional search and seizure of the bodily fluids of people who have done no wrong. Right Wing power led to the deaths and maiming of tens of thousands of Americans in a war base on illegal lies to Congress. Right Wing power has given corporations artificial super personhood with unconstitutional rights and power exceeding those of we the people. Right Wing power is being concentrated by suppressing voter participation in democracy through over-purging voting rolls, restrictive voter registration laws, and selectively denying, and requiring, ID’s of the Right’s choice.
Congress has the constitutional authority to regulate commerce through agencies it creates. Congress would be even more incapacitated if it were forced to legislate every detail of every standard and regulation.
Agreed, I am also a Libertarian. It's funny how Dave will complain about what we assumes we think and then complains about us belonging to a political party in the past we have both told him we are not members of.
Also Dave, a likely reason Red State thinks you may have a burger king view of the Constitution is he might have read this comment thread which would definitely give someone that impression.
Free and Red,
The party you belong to is not important. Who you vote for is. Are you voting Libertarian?
Free,
Dave will complain about what we (he?) assumes we think and then complains about us belonging to a political party
There you go again. This is called projection. Please read above.
lol Jerry,
I am going to cast a write in vote for a libertarian just like John Myste and Jefferson's Guardian are going to cast a write in vote for the Marxist, oops I meant Progressive Ralph Nader! Ralph also has a Burger King view of the Constitution that really leans forward!
I don't think Ralph Nader is running for president this year, but a libertarian is. If you aren't voting for the libertarian candidate then you are a LINO (libertarian in name only).
Libertarians aren't on the ballot in my state this year so I'm not voting. You can scroll up to the link I left above where I linked to a post where I argued that Conservatives shouldn't vote for Romney... on a Conservative blog no less.
Meanwhile you Libs can go vote for indefinite detention union officials become the company and screw over the membership bail out the banks and make you buy insurance from the companies who donate to him Obama.
Meanwhile you Libs can go vote for indefinite detention union officials become the company and screw over the membership bail out the banks and make you buy insurance from the companies who donate to him Obama.
Why, thank you Free, I believe I will. Obama 2012!
And economic ruin in 2013! But hey, I can't say my other choice would be much better. Same policy, different wrapping paper.
Free0352: "Same policy, different wrapping paper."
Something we agree upon...
I'm glad we agree. Thing is, I don't understand why this upsets you. After all, it's the policy you advocate.
I view the system as broken and corrupt, and I *think* you also do. But possibly the key word here is "policy", which from that standpoint I was alluding to a potential Romney administration really being a continuation of his predecessor's. I assume you think the same (based upon your statement, "Same policy, different wrapping paper."), and that you'd also agree that the current administration is essentially a continuation of his (Obama's) predecessor's.
Now I'm not sure what you're defining as "policy" -- the one you *think* I "advocate".
Please explain, because obviously you're confusing me with someone else.
First of all as I've said and I'll say it once again I'm not a Conservative and never have called myself one. I was a Big L Libertarian prior to Sept 11, and only after my party's very idiotic response to the attacks did I begin to side with Conservatives on more than free market-economic issues. In fact on most "social" issues I'm likely far more liberal than most Democrats. However the Libertarian response to Sep 11 as I said was weak, nieve and wrong so I began voting Republican. Then after the antics of the Bush Admin such as Medicare Part D and TARP I switched back in 2008 and trust me I haven't looked back. So called Conservatives and definitely old school Republicans aren't as free market as they like to portray themselves. They are all for a mixed economy - where activist government plays a role. Mitt Romney may be talking the Conservative talk these days but this is a sham. He's in fact a big government Republican. That is like taking all the bad points of the Democrats and Republicans and mushing them up into one uber lame candidate. In fact the ONE area of economic policy your party and Mitt part ways on is tax structure... and then only because he had no hope of winning if he adopted yours. You're for socialized medicine- so is Romney. You're for activist government in the economy, so is Romney. Romney is a Democrat will all the wrong stances on the social issues. That gives him more in common with you than I. But then again, with the exception of abortion and gay marriage the Democrats have themselves a dismal record on social issues.
I for one don't believe the system has "become" corrupt. I happen to think every government in human history has been corrupt and ours is no different. What sets our government apart is how weak it is, and therfore how little damage it can do to our lives while doing the few things we need a government to do for us. Both Romney and Obama want to increase the size and power of government giving it ever more chance to influence our lives... which will ALWAYS influence it in a negative way given the chance. You Libs don't share this opinion and while many Conservatives claim to... in the end at best they extend that only to economic issues. The truth is in the end Romney looks a lot more like a Truman or JFK Democrat than a free marketeer I'd want. He supports the policy to back that. Your policy.
Post a Comment