we should amend the constitution so that we only protect fair speech
toldailytopic: The Fairness Doctrine. Do you agree or disagree with the recent push t
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
- Status
some other dude
New member
Yes, I know what you posted previously. I responded to it. If I forget I'm perfectly capable of scrolling up to see what it was. You're not creating a presentation for Civics class.
Really? Give me a link to a single politician who lost in this last cycle. Make sure the link includes a picture of him/her running out of the office. Otherwise you're just engaging in violent terminology and being a hypocrite.
Who are you doing this for? Me? If so, don't bother.
Yourself? Are you so addled-brained you can't keep track of a conversation without making notes for yourself?
lol Really? "Targetting" an opponent isn't a traditional usage?
But then, if you're too addle-brained to keep track of a conversation without making notes as you go, drawing addle-brained conclusions is probably your thing.
To what extent should fair speech be applied unto?
Barbarian, addressing Sod's confusion as to how voters toss out officials they dislike:
They are called "elections."
You seem to have forgotten again.
Barbarian chuckles:
Ask some politicians who lost the last couple of elections. "Run out of office" is a an apt description for many of them.
Yep.
Ah, so it's metaphors you don't get. See, being badly defeated in an election is sometimes referred to as "being run out of office."
I never thought of running as "violent."
I see the problem. You think that using the political process to remove an official is equivalent to using violence. That was my original point. It's not supposed to be.
Barbarian on the idea that violence is appropriate political activity:
I guess we shouldn't be surprised that someone starts equating democracy with shooting people. If their leaders do it, why wouldn't their followers?
Relax, Sod. Your function here is to to serve as an example of the angry and intemperate types that have infected the political process in America. Someone who thinks political discourse is about guns and "second amendment solutions" and calling names.
Yeah. Like that.
Barbarian observes:
I think it might be good to start with cross-hairs, "reload" and "second amendment solutions" before you get politically correct about traditional election nomenclature.
With rifle sights? No, I don't think so. You may be thinking of Columbia. Yes, I know the word has been used to describe America, but in this case, it's an entirely different country. They do things more your way there.
They are called "elections."
You seem to have forgotten again.
Barbarian chuckles:
Ask some politicians who lost the last couple of elections. "Run out of office" is a an apt description for many of them.
Yep.
Ah, so it's metaphors you don't get. See, being badly defeated in an election is sometimes referred to as "being run out of office."
I never thought of running as "violent."
I see the problem. You think that using the political process to remove an official is equivalent to using violence. That was my original point. It's not supposed to be.
Barbarian on the idea that violence is appropriate political activity:
I guess we shouldn't be surprised that someone starts equating democracy with shooting people. If their leaders do it, why wouldn't their followers?
Relax, Sod. Your function here is to to serve as an example of the angry and intemperate types that have infected the political process in America. Someone who thinks political discourse is about guns and "second amendment solutions" and calling names.
Yeah. Like that.
Barbarian observes:
I think it might be good to start with cross-hairs, "reload" and "second amendment solutions" before you get politically correct about traditional election nomenclature.
With rifle sights? No, I don't think so. You may be thinking of Columbia. Yes, I know the word has been used to describe America, but in this case, it's an entirely different country. They do things more your way there.
Isn't the whole concept of what is fair a manner of opinion and must-needed (or not-needed) debate?
Hard to believe there was a time when democrats and republicans in Congress could be friends and even work together for the good of the country.
Now we see it's publicity stunts for pubic consumption, and values that put party loyalty above patriotism.
Now we see it's publicity stunts for pubic consumption, and values that put party loyalty above patriotism.
some other dude
New member
No silly girl - that would be you, afraid of metaphors like "reload" and crosshairs. Have you forgotten already what you're arguing against?
Poor silly Barbie. I guess I shouldn't pick on the incompetent.
some other dude
New member
Would that be a reference to the way Congress overwhelmingly gave bipartisan support to the invasion of Iraq in 2003?
WizardofOz
New member
In The Barbarian's defense, he did say "work together for the good of the country".
Dems and Republicans are wrong together all the time. Your example is just another in a long line.
He's mad again. Darn. Being a Christian, I don't think it's particularly shameful, so Sod's gender confusion is just funny, not insulting.
I'm thinking of the way Tip O'Neill and Ronald Reagan could fight each other tooth and nail on principle and then work together when they saw the country needed it.
That's what we lack now, and morons like Palin and (republicans can fill in their favorite democrat here) don't get that.
As long as we vote for them, the morons will be pulling the nation down.
some other dude
New member
What office does Palin hold?
True. Bitterness and acrimony weren't unheard of but you had politicians like LBJ who were willing and able to compromise and reach across the aisle.
- Status