Jump to content


Photo

The Insane Rationalizations, Bigotry And Out Right Hypocrisy Of The Left


  • Please log in to reply
13267 replies to this topic

#13261 Rick

Rick

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 4,161 posts

Posted Yesterday, 05:10 AM

Will the good comrades donate the proceedings to the common good  :glare: A classic example of liberal hypocrisy 

 

https://nypost.com/2...raven-cash-grab


  • 0

#13262 DKTanker

DKTanker

    1strdhit

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 25,777 posts

Posted Yesterday, 06:32 PM

 

 

There is no silver bullet.  some form of government will always exit.  If you want good government, take charge of it and use it to mercilessly crush those assholes who would use it against you.  Magnanimity is the privilege of unchallenged power.  S/F...Ken M

Thanks for that insight, fascist.

 


He's right about the game theory. At some point, if we get a civil war here, it's not going to be Marquess of Queensberry rules. It's going to look like Bosnia. Hopefully we can steer around that. The more this all goes on, the less confident I am that we can. 

 

Not what he was referencing.  He was replying to my correct assertion that there is no constitutional mandate for congressional oversight of the media.  He clearly is implying he favors a tyrannical type government control of the media.  I never got the feeling he favored leftist tyranny, but he clearly has been a staunch advocate for a repressive government authority...so long as he agrees with whom is being oppressed.  So Fascist it is.


  • 0

#13263 rmgill

rmgill

    Strap-hanger

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,192 posts

Posted Today, 10:39 AM

Congress has asserted oversight of a great many things since Wickard v Filburn. Even when the courts say that they don't have oversight over something they don't care.   After the Gun Free School Zones act was declared unconstitutional, Congressre-authorized the statute by conducting those findings that the Supreme Court said would still be too far of an inference. (See US v Lopez)

 

I think at some point given how the media is fine with asserting control and infringement upon the rest of us with regards to our rights, but screams like a stuck pig when it comes to it's own rights being questioned, some greater levels of pain are necessary, even if just for a moment. The media is fine with outing people who are politically aligned opposite them. They'll dox them, they'll publish false stories, they'll even condone or even laud abuse of those folks at the hands of violent political activists. They'll even work to suspend the freedom of press rights of those opposite their views. But if you even QUESTION what _THEY_ say, you're apparently against freedom of the press. It's childish beyond measure and clearly utterly lacking in balance at all. 

 

Some pain needs to be applied to curb the bad behavior. 


  • 0

#13264 DKTanker

DKTanker

    1strdhit

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 25,777 posts

Posted Today, 10:52 AM

Some pain needs to be applied to curb the bad behavior. 

So you agree with the proposition that Congress should have oversight of "free" speech?

 

 

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Now I grant you that the right of people to peaceably assemble has been totally abrogated by both congress and SCOTUS, and petitioning government for redress of grievances is largely ignored by the ruling class, but shouldn't we allow ourselves at least the pretense of free speech?


Edited by DKTanker, Today, 10:57 AM.

  • 0

#13265 Burncycle360

Burncycle360

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,598 posts

Posted Today, 01:54 PM

Congress has asserted oversight of a great many things since Wickard v Filburn. Even when the courts say that they don't have oversight over something they don't care.   After the Gun Free School Zones act was declared unconstitutional, Congressre-authorized the statute by conducting those findings that the Supreme Court said would still be too far of an inference. (See US v Lopez)

 

I think at some point given how the media is fine with asserting control and infringement upon the rest of us with regards to our rights, but screams like a stuck pig when it comes to it's own rights being questioned, some greater levels of pain are necessary, even if just for a moment. The media is fine with outing people who are politically aligned opposite them. They'll dox them, they'll publish false stories, they'll even condone or even laud abuse of those folks at the hands of violent political activists. They'll even work to suspend the freedom of press rights of those opposite their views. But if you even QUESTION what _THEY_ say, you're apparently against freedom of the press. It's childish beyond measure and clearly utterly lacking in balance at all. 

 

Some pain needs to be applied to curb the bad behavior. 


Institute an FDA / SEC type regulation outlining a set of agreed upon best practices, you can't call yourself a journalist or your organization a news outlet (only entertainment outlet or some such horseshit)  without meeting certain criteria.   You can still exist otherwise and still keep on doing what you're doing, you just can't claim to be a journalist.  Kind of like investment advisors versus investment brokers meeting fiduciary standards instead of suitability standards.   Anyone can give you financial advice, but not anyone can call themselves a fiduciary. 

Same goes for educational institutions regarding standards and practices. If people don't see that the radical regressive left's infestation of the educational institutions as a threat to national security and our continued existence of the framework supporting it all as a whole, they're not looking far enough past their nose.  This stuff is already running away on us, and if we don't hit the SCRAM button soon it will be unrecoverable.
 


  • 0

#13266 rmgill

rmgill

    Strap-hanger

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,192 posts

Posted Today, 05:33 PM

So you agree with the proposition that Congress should have oversight of "free" speech?


No. I vehemently disagree with that at all. Just like I vehemently disagree that congress should be regulating arms the way they are.

I'm also highly desirous that we not have a civil war. However, once we go beyond a certain point, game theory says you can't keep your principled stance. That's what I see E5M observing.

When the dust settles we should go back to a status quo ante on at least federal powers on interstate commerce stuff to say just before FDR and dial back on a bunch of other federal laws better left to the state.  

I'll put it another way, if the FCC somehow get's a mandate to regulate internet content, do you think we should sit down and shut up if they close down the right leaning sites but keep the left leaning sites like the HuffPo online? The rule should apply equally. That's the best way for them to realize that yeah, it's a bad idea.

Edited by rmgill, Today, 05:34 PM.

  • 0

#13267 DKTanker

DKTanker

    1strdhit

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 25,777 posts

Posted Today, 05:44 PM

 

So you agree with the proposition that Congress should have oversight of "free" speech?


No. I vehemently disagree with that at all. Just like I vehemently disagree that congress should be regulating arms the way they are.

I'm also highly desirous that we not have a civil war. However, once we go beyond a certain point, game theory says you can't keep your principled stance. That's what I see E5M observing.

When is that point and who decides that point?  I haven't heard a call to arms to fight a civil war, have you?  This has nothing to do with game theory and everything to do with politicians, in this case a RW politician, calling for congressional oversight of the media.  I'm not sure which is more frightening for our Republic, politicians with hair brained ideas to quash freedom, or that there are people openly supporting those hair brained ideas.


  • 0

#13268 rmgill

rmgill

    Strap-hanger

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,192 posts

Posted Today, 06:44 PM

When is that point and who decides that point?  I haven't heard a call to arms to fight a civil war, have you?  This has nothing to do with game theory and everything to do with politicians, in this case a RW politician, calling for congressional oversight of the media.  I'm not sure which is more frightening for our Republic, politicians with hair brained ideas to quash freedom, or that there are people openly supporting those hair brained ideas.


Generally, when we don't have 3 of the 4 boxes any more then it's probably time. If we have those, then it's not time.

If things work they way they're supposed to, SCOTUS will stop those hair brained ideas. Which is why the SCOTUS nominees matter so much. Generally, the ones on the right adhere to the text of the law instead of the desires in the end which is why you see them 'voting' the way they did in cases like Lopez or Kelo v New London. Conversely you ahave folks who think that what makes a good judge is their race or gender or identity along with some kooky idea.
  • 0