Up until now whatever one could say about Bill, he was at least consistent!
In fact I have wondered many times why somebody with an obviously high intelligence (no pun intended) could have ended up in his situation, and seem happy about it, I wonder no more.
IP: Logged
12:22 AM
Blacktree Member
Posts: 20770 From: Central Florida Registered: Dec 2001
Originally posted by Formula88: The only rights Bill wants to fight for are Bill's rights, and he expects you to help.
Hey now... you are missing one very very important aspect, UNITED. This isnt about me, I'm a nothing, you are a nothing, todd, phranc, red, etc are nothings but together ya yant beat it. So it's not about me or what I want but is about what "we" want and what you are willing to "sacrifice" (opinions, feelings, wants, needs) in order to preserve a fundamental basic concept called freedom.. thats what this is about... not me...it's about "our" freedom. Once it's gone, it's gone and god help those who try to take it back.
quote
That's not at all how I had Bill pegged before. I didn't think his convictions were so easily discarded.
Makes for very compelling discussions... doesn't it?
This country was named the UNITED States.
"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance." -- Thomas Jefferson
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants" - Thomas Jefferson
Blood is a bit too harsh for me, I'd rather sacrifice opinion and or feelings to preserve freedom. Which is why I took the side of the Phelps family and flag burners. I got a plenty of red in my bar for doing so. I cant stand what they do but they are supposed to be "free" to do so if they so desire. My goal is to save freedom and sometimes I need to let the scumbags have their way and even go as far as to "defend" them. I'm NOT defending them but I am defending freedom of speech. I dont like it, I dont like those who do that crap, I find their actions detestable but I love freedom FAR more. I'm willing to turn the cheek and get real dirty for the moment and even go as far as to be called a lot of nasty names by those who dont understand what I'm doing and why I'm doing it... If I ever had the chance to cross the Phelps family or flag burners I'd hurl the rotten eggs at them in a heart beat.
There is a price to be paid if you want to be free and I'm willing to pay it by biting my tongue and defending it and those who burn my flag. I'm defending freedom, their freedom, my freedom, your freedom. The last thing I want is the government to step in... I hate the government more than flag burners because they will take any weakness and use it to steamroll the rights of everyone... one tiny step at a time. First the free speech zones, then individual families. When it gets to you it's already far too late.
The Phelps family and flag burners arent taking away any freedoms.
Sure, they piss me off but I can take the pain quietly, I can suffer by defending that freedom and protect it from being taken away or I can fold and let the enemy take away that freedom one tintse tinsey bit at a time in a slow relentless precession until one day our children will not know anything about what was.. Like Chinese water toucher.. chink... chink... chink..
[This message has been edited by 84Bill (edited 10-16-2007).]
IP: Logged
12:40 AM
ktthecarguy Member
Posts: 2076 From: Livonia, MI USA Registered: Jun 2007
This is where you lost me. How can you be for free speech and the unconstitutional (and inapproriately named) 'fairness doctrine' at the same time?
As for the accuracy of what comes out of Rush's mouth, I don't know where you get your facts (sounds like more hate to me) but the independent media monitoring group AIM found him to be accurate 97.9% of the time.
Princeton University (hardly a bastion of conservatism) found that the media is bias heavily to the left. Only 7% of all journalist identified themselves as conservative. And yet, even with this staggeringly overweighted bias towards teh left Hitlery and her facsist buddies want to silence the remaining handful of conservatives on the scarecly listened to AM radio band. The Fairness Doctrine is an attempt to control content by controlling the airwaves. If the government doesn't like what you have to say then they just take your license to broadcast away. You seriously support this unmittigated and unashamed naziism? YOU HAVE GOT TO BE KIDDING!
Wow, you are all over the map with this post. 12 million listeners sounds like a lot of people, but yet AM radio is scarcely listened to? And seriously, how many journalists would identify themselves one way or the other? Their job is to be unbiased, so identifying themselves either way would be at odds with their job. I am sure Faux News does not "identify" themselves as conservative, but they SO ARE!!
As for the choice between "free" and "fair" I will take FAIR any day of the week, and twice on Sunday!! Free speech has reasonable limits, as with any freedom. As Justice Oliver Wendall Holmes so famously put it, "your right to freely swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose." As a further example of fairness over free speech, we are not allowed to libel or slander each other. To do so would be totally free, but inherently unfair.
Please stop thinking in terms of absolutes - totally free speech versus totally censored speech - our world does not work well in absolutes. It works much better in the middle ground.
Their job is to be unbiased, so identifying themselves either way would be at odds with their job. I am sure Faux News does not "identify" themselves as conservative, but they SO ARE!!
Me thinks that one says it all,,,,,,,,,,,, "faux" what are you trying to say here? heh
uhhhemmm,,,, Dan Rather, Dan Rather
IP: Logged
12:23 PM
Toddster Member
Posts: 20871 From: Roswell, Georgia Registered: May 2001
Wow, you are all over the map with this post. 12 million listeners sounds like a lot of people, but yet AM radio is scarcely listened to? And seriously, how many journalists would identify themselves one way or the other? Their job is to be unbiased, so identifying themselves either way would be at odds with their job. I am sure Faux News does not "identify" themselves as conservative, but they SO ARE!!
I really don't know why you are finding this so hard to follow but I'll be willing to explain once; who is to say that 12 million or 120 million is a "lot"? This country has 300 million citizen. Nuf said. Secondly, The PEW Research poll showed that 7% of all journalists classify themselves as conservatives. Again, this is fact, not guess work.
And YES, in fact, most journalist who work for FOX news did classify themselves as conservative but the VAST majority of journalists in all other networks overwhelmingly called themselves liberals and guess who has the high ratings and the highest accuracy in reporting scores? Go ahead. Take a guess.
quote
As for the choice between "free" and "fair" I will take FAIR any day of the week, and twice on Sunday!! Free speech has reasonable limits, as with any freedom. As Justice Oliver Wendall Holmes so famously put it, "your right to freely swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose." As a further example of fairness over free speech, we are not allowed to libel or slander each other. To do so would be totally free, but inherently unfair.
Please stop thinking in terms of absolutes - totally free speech versus totally censored speech - our world does not work well in absolutes. It works much better in the middle ground.
Really? Indeed? Then perhaps you can explain this LIBERAL position; "It is OK for politicians to Lie", says the liberal Washington State Supreme Court, Conservatives dissent: http://blogs.thenewstribune..._about_your_opponent
And then of course there is the question, WHAT IS "FAIR" AND WHO IS GOING TO DECIDE!?
What if a Conservative Government took over and made a law saying that all speech related to socilizing society will be considered a felony and you will be jailed for it. HEY, that's "FAIR"...right? I mean they were elected afterall. Still think controlling people's right to voice their opinion is a good idea? Didn't think so.
Thanks for your opinion Commrade but I'll take FREE speech any day and THREE times on Sunday.
IP: Logged
07:37 PM
Toddster Member
Posts: 20871 From: Roswell, Georgia Registered: May 2001
Really? Indeed? Then perhaps you can explain this LIBERAL position; "It is OK for politicians to Lie", says the liberal Washington State Supreme Court, Conservatives dissent: http://blogs.thenewstribune..._about_your_opponent
Did you actually read this post? It says the supreme court ruled AGAINST the Democratic candidate and FOR the Green party candidate, and FOR free speech (at least their interpretation of it).
If you post something, you should really read it and understand it first. It won't look so embarrasing then.
And the Media Research Center as a "non-biased" source for your chart?? WTF!! Here is how Yahoo lists this group: "Media Research Center - Conservative media watchdog group dedicated to bringing political balance to the news and entertainment media." So they have a deep-seated conservative agenda. Therefore, I don't trust their "facts" any farther than I can throw them.
quote
Originally posted by Toddster: And then of course there is the question, WHAT IS "FAIR" AND WHO IS GOING TO DECIDE!?
What if a Conservative Government took over and made a law saying that all speech related to socilizing [sic] society will be considered a felony and you will be jailed for it. HEY, that's "FAIR"...right? I mean they were elected afterall. Still think controlling people's right to voice their opinion is a good idea? Didn't think so.
Thanks for your opinion Commrade [sic] but I'll take FREE speech any day and THREE times on Sunday.
Name-calling me a communist is childish and WAY off-target. I am liberal, not socialist or communist. Leave the name-calling on the elementary school playground, where it belongs.
IP: Logged
06:07 AM
PFF
System Bot
Formula88 Member
Posts: 53788 From: Raleigh NC Registered: Jan 2001
And the Media Research Center as a "non-biased" source for your chart?? WTF!! Here is how Yahoo lists this group: "Media Research Center - Conservative media watchdog group dedicated to bringing political balance to the news and entertainment media." So they have a deep-seated conservative agenda. Therefore, I don't trust their "facts" any farther than I can throw them
So if a conservative group says they want to bring "balance" you don't trust them. But if a liberal group says the same thing, you do? You have a deep-seated liberal agenda. Therefore, I don't trust you.
[This message has been edited by Formula88 (edited 10-16-2007).]
IP: Logged
09:40 AM
Toddster Member
Posts: 20871 From: Roswell, Georgia Registered: May 2001
Name-calling me a communist is childish and WAY off-target. I am liberal, not socialist or communist. Leave the name-calling on the elementary school playground, where it belongs.
Its not name calling. If you seriously advocate "fair" speech over free speech then you are a communist. Simple fact. Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Moa, all were in favor of "fair" speech and the gulags are full of people who said "unfair" things about the government.
And, you skillfully avoided my question I see. The "Politicians can lie" story was passed by liberal activist judges! The party who gained or lost is irrelevant. They CLAIM that it was in defense of free speech but in fact all they did was make it OK to slander someone which would be illegal for anyone who isn't running for office. THIS....is an example of your "fair" speech.
So? Do you want to be told what you can and can't say or not?
And facts are facts. Granted people spin them on both sides of the isle but let's face it, it is hard to argue that the media has a liberal bias when liberals agree that the media is biased towards liberals.
[This message has been edited by Toddster (edited 10-16-2007).]
IP: Logged
04:03 PM
Toddster Member
Posts: 20871 From: Roswell, Georgia Registered: May 2001
Why would I answer my own question? I am not the one trying to restrict Rush's right to Free Speech. NEWSFLASH GENIUS, I STARTED THE THREAD!
YOU are the one who said, "This isnt a resolution regarding John Q Private citizen but rather about Rush Limbaugh the talk show host abusing his privileges.
Privilege Bill? I thought free speech was a RIGHT!
OK Bill, just wo we are clear here, put down the doobie and follow the bouning ball:
I started this thread to criticize the Senate for trying to restrict the right to free speech of American citizen Rush Limbaugh,
YOUUUUUUUU claim Rush Limbaugh is "abusing his priveleges".
Now either answer the question or run away with your tail between your legs but this rubber and glue comedy routine of yours is making you look foolish
Bill At Work:
I'm Dith-picable
[This message has been edited by Toddster (edited 10-16-2007).]
IP: Logged
08:19 PM
ktthecarguy Member
Posts: 2076 From: Livonia, MI USA Registered: Jun 2007
Its not name calling. If you seriously advocate "fair" speech over free speech then you are a communist. Simple fact. Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Moa [sic], all were in favor of "fair" speech and the gulags are full of people who said "unfair" things about the government.
And, you skillfully avoided my question I see. The "Politicians can lie" story was passed by liberal activist judges! The party who gained or lost is irrelevant. They CLAIM that it was in defense of free speech but in fact all they did was make it OK to slander someone which would be illegal for anyone who isn't running for office. THIS....is an example of your "fair" speech.
So? Do you want to be told what you can and can't say or not?
And facts are facts. Granted people spin them on both sides of the isle but let's face it, it is hard to argue that the media has a liberal bias when liberals agree that the media is biased towards liberals.
Wrong.
I do not identify myself with the Communist Party, nor with the communist movement, therefore I AM NOT A COMMUNIST!!! Get it through your head. And yes, that is name-calling.
as for the "Politicians can lie" story, you got it backwards. The judges ruled in favor of unfettered "free" speech, as opposed to more regulated "fair" speech. So you should be happy with the outcome.
As for your "facts" show me an unbiased website that agrees the right-wing website you listed before. Otherwise, it is an opinion, not fact.
IP: Logged
08:33 PM
Toddster Member
Posts: 20871 From: Roswell, Georgia Registered: May 2001
I do not identify myself with the Communist Party, nor with the communist movement, therefore I AM NOT A COMMUNIST!!! Get it through your head. And yes, that is name-calling.
The Nazis called themselves "Socialists" too. Are you saying that you are a Nazi? Try to follow along, I DON'T CARE what euphamism you wish to use to refer to yourself. YOUR ACTIONS dictate what you stand for, not your words. And if you are for restricting Rush Limbaugh or anyone else's right to free speech then whatever the hell you call yourself you are NOT for Democracy. Get THAT through YOUR head.
quote
as for the "Politicians can lie" story, you got it backwards. The judges ruled in favor of unfettered "free" speech, as opposed to more regulated "fair" speech. So you should be happy with the outcome.
You yourself gave the example that free speech stops at the tip of your nose. Free Speech is the right to express yourself without sanction as long as that expression does not harm others. Well? I would like to think you would agree that LYING about someone in public HARMS them. Am I wrong? You can't yell Fire in a crowded theater and the Supreme Court has ruled that that is not protected Free Speech because of this very concept. Hence, the Washington State law directly contracdicts Federal Law. If reviewed by the US Supreme Court it will be overturned and rightfully so.
Liberals are the ones who are trying to blur this line with this legislation. They want to be able to win elections. They know the only way to do it is to lie! Lying about someone in public is Slander and Libel because it hurts people. Hence, the liberals need to change the rules to make Lying legal as long as it is about polticians! And you are OK with this!?!?!
Come to think of it, Stalin was OK with it too. Oops, there is that 'action' verses 'rhetoric' thing again.
quote
As for your "facts" show me an unbiased website that agrees the right-wing website you listed before. Otherwise, it is an opinion, not fact.
And It is also my opinion that the Earth revolves around the Sun. But it's just an opinion because I saw it stated on a Left Wing website.
[This message has been edited by Toddster (edited 10-16-2007).]
Why would I answer my own question? I am not the one trying to restrict Rush's right to Free Speech. NEWSFLASH GENIUS, I STARTED THE THREAD!
YOU are the one who said, "This isnt a resolution regarding John Q Private citizen but rather about Rush Limbaugh the talk show host abusing his privileges.
Privilege Bill? I thought free speech was a RIGHT!
According to you in many other threads it's a privilage. IE His rights end where mine begin. I was offended by his statements and therefore he violated my rights. Or he "could have" offended me and again that is a violation of my rights... according to you.
quote
Originally posted by Turddster: OK Bill, just wo we are clear here, put down the doobie and follow the bouning ball:
Resorting to insults once again...
Whatever, and you are a overbearing arrogant equivocator.
quote
I started this thread to criticize the Senate for trying to restrict the right to free speech of American citizen Rush Limbaugh,
YOUUUUUUUU claim Rush Limbaugh is "abusing his priveleges".
Aparently the senate felt he was being abusive as well. So it's not just me... Whats the problem Toddy, is "the man" oppressing your boy toy?
quote
Now either answer the question or run away with your tail between your legs but this rubber and glue comedy routine of yours is making you look foolish
Uhh no Toddy, I dont play games. I state how I feel like it or not. Now you tell me who you think you are to say that the senate is wrong? They are educated men with years of "constitutional" experience, hundreds of lawyers on tap and not to mention the most powerful court in the land right next door. So who are you to say what Rush Skumbaugh can or can not say??
Cant answer the question but you sure as hell can require an answer to it.. IE [schoolyardvoice} You can dish it out but you cant take it... nanny nanny poo poo on you hoo [/schoolyardvoice]
Go play in a sand box.. or how about go pound some?
quote
Bill At Work:
I'm Dith-picable
Ya ya ya... Grow up Todd.
[This message has been edited by 84Bill (edited 10-16-2007).]
I do not identify myself with the Communist Party, nor with the communist movement, therefore I AM NOT A COMMUNIST!!! Get it through your head. And yes, that is name-calling.
Sorry you do not have to identify yourself with the communists no more than an alcoholic has to admit he is a drunk to be one!
Originally posted by Red88FF: Sorry you do not have to identify yourself with the communists no more than an alcoholic has to admit he is a drunk to be one! Fair or free, you chose fair, pure and simple.
So that means he a communist because he states you and everyone has a duty to contribute to society?
I believe your statement is more communist than his... I could be wrong but I doubt it.
[This message has been edited by 84Bill (edited 10-16-2007).]
IP: Logged
09:15 PM
Toddster Member
Posts: 20871 From: Roswell, Georgia Registered: May 2001
blah blah blah , divert attetnion, divert attention, I can't win with intellect so I just shovel more **** than anyone can bother to read and then claim victory. same ole, same ole.
Uh Bill, I DARE you to show me a quote where I ever said Free Speech was a Privilege.
You can't. And making a statement like that without the smallest shred of a link is so pitiful as to be beyond the pale...
Originally posted by Toddster: The Nazis called themselves "Socialists" too.
I asked Red88FF this question but since you used a different word to slander someone I'll use the same word in context..
If I were to say each free man and woman in this country is bound by duty to contribute to this society that I would be considered a Socialist or maybe even a Nazi or Communist?
I think your brain needs some rewiring Todd.
IP: Logged
09:48 PM
Toddster Member
Posts: 20871 From: Roswell, Georgia Registered: May 2001
Originally posted by Turddster: Blah blah insult drivel slander diversion
If I were to say each free man and woman in this country is bound by duty to contribute to this society that I would be considered a Socialist or maybe even a Nazi or Communist?
:waiting:
IP: Logged
09:53 PM
Toddster Member
Posts: 20871 From: Roswell, Georgia Registered: May 2001
If I were to say each free man and woman in this country is bound by duty to contribute to this society that I would be considered a Socialist or maybe even a Nazi or Communist?
Originally posted by Toddequivocator: Rush diversion
Okay... Then I'll answer FOR YOU.
You DO have a duty to society weather you accept it or not. To not accept that duty is a dishonor to those who died for freedom and equality in the formation of this once great nation. You are a living breathing insult to everything this country is about.
You are nothing more than a Commie in denial Toddy.
Ah yes the "I'm rubber you're glue, whatever you say bouces off me and sticks to you" gambit.
Smooth move Bill...Smoooooooooooth.
Look Bill if you have finished trashing another thread with your circle jerk logic some of us here actually give a damn about this issue and would like to discuss it.
Originally posted by Toddster: Ah yes the "I'm rubber you're glue, whatever you say bouces off me and sticks to you" gambit. Smooth move Bill...Smoooooooooooth.
I'm glad you liked my funny pictures too... GET REAL TODD!!!
quote
Look Bill if you have finished trashing another thread with your circle jerk logic some of us here actually give a damn about this issue and would like to discuss it.
I give a damn about it, I feel it is important and I feel there have been "some" great statements in this thread but the problem is no one is willing to back up their statement with anything other than a question... Last time I check clairification is not answered with a question.
This thread has merrit, I like the topic. I find it odd how YOU flip flop on issues based on your party affiliations and own personal feelings with regard to rights. I'm just here seeking clarifications on a few things.
1. Do you defend the freedom of speech whole heartedly even if it hurts to do so or do you just do it if the feeling moves you for the moment and only if the wind is blowing in the right direction?
2. Do you feel everyone has a duty to society or is that a communist / socialist / liberal / nazi idea?
Not very dificult questions to answer.. As for "who am I to <insert question / demand here>
Very easy to answer... I'm 84Bill.
[This message has been edited by 84Bill (edited 10-16-2007).]
Originally posted by Toddster: Uh Bill, I DARE you to show me a quote where I ever said Free Speech was a Privilege.
You can't. And making a statement like that without the smallest shred of a link is so pitiful as to be beyond the pale...
Yes I can.
If Freedom of Speech were a right then HOW can Rush be censured by the senate for what he DID?
Evidentially it is a privilege otherwise the senate would be wrong for doing what it did.
Now.. what are you going to do about it... Other than complain on a car forum... Hey.. I seem to recall hearing that some time ago... Nah.. just more delusions eh Toddy? LOL
Here ya go Todd. Be sure to boil for at least 10 munuts before eating.
IP: Logged
11:31 PM
jstricker Member
Posts: 12956 From: Russell, KS USA Registered: Apr 2002
If Freedom of Speech were a right then HOW can Rush be censured by the senate for what he DID?
Because a censure means nothing. IMHO, THEY are also exercising their right to freedom of speech. The only thing that bothers me is they're doing it on the taxpayer's dime. That does not mean that Rush can't say what he wants to. He was not banned from saying anything. He was not ordered by a court of law not to say anything. He wasn't put before a firing squad for saying anything. The Senate (democrats) just voiced their own displeasure with him.
quote
Originally posted by 84Bill:
Evidentially it is a privilege otherwise the senate would be wrong for doing what it did.
They are wrong for what they did because they did it when they should have been working. That doesn't mean free speech is a privelege. It's a right granted under the constitution. If you're going to use the public airwaves there are certain words and things you can not say, and those are spelled out pretty specifically. Rush didn't violate any of those rules or he would have been in trouble with the FCC (the senate would have seen to THAT little matter).
The one right you, I, or anyone else does NOT have is the right to NOT be offended. I'm personally offended by very fat women that insist on wearing short shorts and thongs. But that's just me. I can't do anything about it, nor would I want a law passed against it. Well, maybe I would. No, on further review, I would not. Now where was I? Oh, yeah, being offended...................
If one of my rights is to NOT be offended, then every time I hear a politician talk about taking 1/5 of the economy and nationalizing it in the form of government health care, I would have my rights violated because that is extremely offensive to me. Almost as much as having to smell brocoli cooking. Which would also be against my constitutional right to not be offended. (Changing diapers is right up there as well, which is why I have not and never will do that either).
quote
Originally posted by 84Bill:
Now.. what are you going to do about it... Other than complain on a car forum... Hey.. I seem to recall hearing that some time ago... Nah.. just more delusions eh Toddy? LOL
Here ya go Todd. Be sure to boil for at least 10 munuts before eating.
I don't know or care what Todd's going to do about it. I'm going to bed. I'm just amazed that you, Bill, Mr. "I HAVE MY RIGHTS AND I DEMAND THEM" can even take the devil's advocate side of this argument.
Oh well, whatever.
John Stricker
edited to fix the quote tags, Jack Daniels interfered the first time..............
[This message has been edited by jstricker (edited 10-16-2007).]
[/schoolyardvoice]
I seem to recall hearing that some time ago... Nah.. just more delusions eh Toddy? LOL
