> > There, there Cal... Be a good fellow and drink your milk. > > Mommy is bringing you your tinfoil hat and will chase all > > the big bad liberals away...
> Unfortunately the liberals are here to stay. A grim consolation > in all this is that those liberals who are not so extreme, but have > enabled the extremists, are going to suffer for what they have > brought on everyone.
> And that includes you, unless you are merely posing as a > liberal for the fun of it. Who knows, or cares? > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > Re: liberals and a liberal society. > Perhaps liberals are those who have a different point of view. > The word extreme seems to be a value you place with liberals, > yet I detect no such concerns about those who are to the right > of your point of view. Did GWB "enable" Right wing extremists, > I wonder? > Generally most of us are committed to our differing points of view, > and elections make no difference in the way we cast our vote(s). > Those who do change their votes from the choice of two have > no trouble with the concerns you raise. > The people I suspect elections are for are like that woman who > complained that she had voted for Obama, but her husband and > herself were unemployed so she will be voting Republican next > time. > In the UK, many people have expressed a desire to vote for the > Fascist party, BNP at the next election. Fortunately most of them > could not find their way to a polling station. > Liberals as you insist on calling them are people who want a > society that has been well described. The difference is a moral > rather than a fiscal one. > Obama has by his taking the highest office in the land, made a > section of people feel that the American Dream can still be > something they can dream in too. > I think of Nat King Cole, who, when taking up residence in a > Hollywood street, was approached by one of his neighbours, > (presumably after the word "n....r" was burned or dug into his lawn) > "we just want to live in an area where there are no bad people" > To which Cole replied, "me too".
(Don't take it as future obligation, but... that's a pretty good post.)
> moviePig wrote: > > On Nov 7, 9:29 am, trotsky <gmsi...@email.com> wrote: > >> moviePig wrote: > >>> On Nov 6, 8:19 pm, calvin <cri...@windstream.net> wrote: > >>>> On Nov 6, 6:08 pm, moviePig <pwall...@moviepig.com> wrote: > >>>>> On Nov 6, 5:27 pm, calvin <cri...@windstream.net> wrote: > >>>>>> On Nov 6, 3:09 pm, moviePig <pwall...@moviepig.com> wrote: > >>>>>>> On Nov 6, 2:38 pm, calvin <cri...@windstream.net> wrote: > >>>>>>>> On Nov 6, 2:24 pm, moviePig <pwall...@moviepig.com> wrote: > >>>>>>>>> On Nov 6, 1:16 pm, calvin <cri...@windstream.net> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> On Nov 6, 11:29 am, Tom <drso...@aol.com> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 5, 10:14 am, calvin <cri...@windstream.net> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 5, 9:46 am, "The Giant Brain" <gi...@brain.invalid> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>> "calvin" <cri...@windstream.net> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, you think denial of secret ballots in union elections, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and other things on which they vote, is okay? > >>>>>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------ > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Please provide proof. > >>>>>>>>>>>> Here ya go: > >>>>>>>>>>>>http://www.uschamber.com/issues/index/labor/cardchecksecrbal.htm > >>>>>>>>>>> Calvin, the low esteem with which many large American companies hold > >>>>>>>>>>> the Chamber of Commerce is a big signal the Chamber's opinion is of > >>>>>>>>>>> little value. > >>>>>>>>>>> Large companies are leaving the Chamber in droves because it is so out > >>>>>>>>>>> of touch with modern business thought. > >>>>>>>>>>> How about another, more credible, source? > >>>>>>>>>> Okay, I'll Google some others, as you could do for > >>>>>>>>>> yourself. This is a simple matter of fact, however. > >>>>>>>>>> Having to publicly sign a card saying whether you > >>>>>>>>>> want a union in your place of work is a non-secret > >>>>>>>>>> ballot. It doesn't matter whether the institution > >>>>>>>>>> complaining is right-wing or not. > >>>>>>>>>> In general, when reporting an outrage, the reporter > >>>>>>>>>> is more likely to be on the ideological side that most > >>>>>>>>>> dislikes the outrage. Those who don't mind the outrage > >>>>>>>>>> don't bother to report it. > >>>>>>>>>> I once told a poster here about Sandy Berger taking > >>>>>>>>>> documents from the National Archives, and I documented > >>>>>>>>>> it with reports by Rush Limbaugh and Brit Hume. But > >>>>>>>>>> the poster declared, "I know those guys", and refused > >>>>>>>>>> to believe therefore that Berger did anything wrong. > >>>>>>>>>> Apparently he will believe only what Keith Olbermann thinks > >>>>>>>>>> is wrong. > >>>>>>>>> If I had a "fact" that I could document only with, say, Olbermann and > >>>>>>>>> DailyKos, I'd present it as, at most, rumor. > >>>>>>>> Okay, it has been rumored that Sandy Berger was caught > >>>>>>>> removing documents from the National Archives, and it has > >>>>>>>> been rumored that the Obama Administration has supported > >>>>>>>> non-secret ballots on the question of whether workplaces > >>>>>>>> shall become unionized or not. > >>>>>>> If you're trying to make a point with irony, I gotta say I'm receiving > >>>>>>> it instead as inadvertent honesty... > >>>>>> My point is only that these are news items, not > >>>>>> editorials. > >>>>> My point is only that, for convincing others of something, citing only > >>>>> Limbaugh and Hume might not be maximally efficient. > >>>> When the mainstream media don't care enough > >>>> to report that which makes the left uncomfortable, > >>>> then Limbaugh and Hume become as efficient as > >>>> one will be able to find to cite. > >>>> Your innate cynical devining rod is always strangely > >>>> inert in the presence of mischief on the left. > >>> Jeez, and there I was thinking I'd *just* made somewhere up there an > >>> analogous remark about Olbermann and DailyKos. Must've been an > >>> artefact of Liberal DTs... > >> Or artifact, as the case may be.
> > Per Wiki -- "# artefact or artifact: In British usage, artefact is the > > main spelling and artifact a minor variant. In American English, > > artifact is the usual spelling. Canadians prefer artifact and > > Australians artefact, according to their respective dictionaries. > > Artefact reflects Arte-fact(um), the Latin source."
> > I debated, but relied on the most recent instance I recalled -- > > probably in British subtitles. So, I admit that you and your Canadian > > friends seem indeed to be correct... (if a bit arty-factual...)
> Okay, I may have seen that spelling at some point in time whilst reading > Brit. Lit., but more recently we have seen the term used ad infinitum > when discussing high end video, so I don't think the alternate spelling > comes up much. Interestingly (to a spelling geek anyway) my > spellchecker in Thunderbird underlines "artefact" as if it is an > incorrect spelling.
On Nov 7, 9:44 am, "The Giant Brain" <gi...@brain.invalid> wrote:
> Actually I am conservative on many fiscal issues
Hard to believe.
> and liberal on social issues.
The country can survive abortion and same-sex marriage.
> I think there should be a single-payer health system in this country, managed by > the government
Which couldn't manage a whorehouse.
> and financed by making the wealthy pay their fair share of taxes.
They're already paying most of the taxes. I wonder what you think is their fair share. 100%? Or, more intelligently, just slightly less than the percentage that would kill their incentive to produce?
Even more intelligent, which liberals will never understand, would be to let the wealthy keep more of their money, which would mean it stays invested and therefore boosts the economy and provides jobs; and, far beyond what liberals are capable of understanding, would increase tax revenue for the government.
> moviePig wrote: > > On Nov 7, 9:29 am, trotsky <gmsi...@email.com> wrote: > >> moviePig wrote: > >>> On Nov 6, 8:19 pm, calvin <cri...@windstream.net> wrote: > >>>> On Nov 6, 6:08 pm, moviePig <pwall...@moviepig.com> wrote: > >>>>> On Nov 6, 5:27 pm, calvin <cri...@windstream.net> wrote: > >>>>>> On Nov 6, 3:09 pm, moviePig <pwall...@moviepig.com> wrote: > >>>>>>> On Nov 6, 2:38 pm, calvin <cri...@windstream.net> wrote: > >>>>>>>> On Nov 6, 2:24 pm, moviePig <pwall...@moviepig.com> wrote: > >>>>>>>>> On Nov 6, 1:16 pm, calvin <cri...@windstream.net> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> On Nov 6, 11:29 am, Tom <drso...@aol.com> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 5, 10:14 am, calvin <cri...@windstream.net> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 5, 9:46 am, "The Giant Brain" <gi...@brain.invalid> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>> "calvin" <cri...@windstream.net> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, you think denial of secret ballots in union elections, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and other things on which they vote, is okay? > >>>>>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------ > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Please provide proof. > >>>>>>>>>>>> Here ya go: > >>>>>>>>>>>>http://www.uschamber.com/issues/index/labor/cardchecksecrbal.htm > >>>>>>>>>>> Calvin, the low esteem with which many large American companies > >>>>>>>>>>> hold > >>>>>>>>>>> the Chamber of Commerce is a big signal the Chamber's opinion is > >>>>>>>>>>> of > >>>>>>>>>>> little value. > >>>>>>>>>>> Large companies are leaving the Chamber in droves because it is so > >>>>>>>>>>> out > >>>>>>>>>>> of touch with modern business thought. > >>>>>>>>>>> How about another, more credible, source? > >>>>>>>>>> Okay, I'll Google some others, as you could do for > >>>>>>>>>> yourself. This is a simple matter of fact, however. > >>>>>>>>>> Having to publicly sign a card saying whether you > >>>>>>>>>> want a union in your place of work is a non-secret > >>>>>>>>>> ballot. It doesn't matter whether the institution > >>>>>>>>>> complaining is right-wing or not. > >>>>>>>>>> In general, when reporting an outrage, the reporter > >>>>>>>>>> is more likely to be on the ideological side that most > >>>>>>>>>> dislikes the outrage. Those who don't mind the outrage > >>>>>>>>>> don't bother to report it. > >>>>>>>>>> I once told a poster here about Sandy Berger taking > >>>>>>>>>> documents from the National Archives, and I documented > >>>>>>>>>> it with reports by Rush Limbaugh and Brit Hume. But > >>>>>>>>>> the poster declared, "I know those guys", and refused > >>>>>>>>>> to believe therefore that Berger did anything wrong. > >>>>>>>>>> Apparently he will believe only what Keith Olbermann thinks > >>>>>>>>>> is wrong. > >>>>>>>>> If I had a "fact" that I could document only with, say, Olbermann > >>>>>>>>> and > >>>>>>>>> DailyKos, I'd present it as, at most, rumor. > >>>>>>>> Okay, it has been rumored that Sandy Berger was caught > >>>>>>>> removing documents from the National Archives, and it has > >>>>>>>> been rumored that the Obama Administration has supported > >>>>>>>> non-secret ballots on the question of whether workplaces > >>>>>>>> shall become unionized or not. > >>>>>>> If you're trying to make a point with irony, I gotta say I'm receiving > >>>>>>> it instead as inadvertent honesty... > >>>>>> My point is only that these are news items, not > >>>>>> editorials. > >>>>> My point is only that, for convincing others of something, citing only > >>>>> Limbaugh and Hume might not be maximally efficient. > >>>> When the mainstream media don't care enough > >>>> to report that which makes the left uncomfortable, > >>>> then Limbaugh and Hume become as efficient as > >>>> one will be able to find to cite. > >>>> Your innate cynical devining rod is always strangely > >>>> inert in the presence of mischief on the left. > >>> Jeez, and there I was thinking I'd *just* made somewhere up there an > >>> analogous remark about Olbermann and DailyKos. Must've been an > >>> artefact of Liberal DTs... > >> Or artifact, as the case may be.
> > Per Wiki -- "# artefact or artifact: In British usage, artefact is the > > main spelling and artifact a minor variant. In American English, > > artifact is the usual spelling. Canadians prefer artifact and > > Australians artefact, according to their respective dictionaries. > > Artefact reflects Arte-fact(um), the Latin source."
> > I debated, but relied on the most recent instance I recalled -- > > probably in British subtitles. So, I admit that you and your Canadian > > friends seem indeed to be correct... (if a bit arty-factual...)
> Okay, I may have seen that spelling at some point in time whilst reading > Brit. Lit., but more recently we have seen the term used ad infinitum > when discussing high end video, so I don't think the alternate spelling > comes up much. Interestingly (to a spelling geek anyway) my > spellchecker in Thunderbird underlines "artefact" as if it is an > incorrect spelling.
So does mine in Google. Fuck 'em. ------------------------------------------------------- When I use the British voice on my GPS system, it calls a traffic circle a roundabout!
On Nov 7, 9:55 am, "Stone me" <sun...@boulevard.hwd> wrote:
> ... > Obama has by his taking the highest office in the land, made a > section of people feel that the American Dream can still be > something they can dream in too. > I think of Nat King Cole, who, when taking up residence in a > Hollywood street, was approached by one of his neighbours, > (presumably after the word "n....r" was burned or dug into his lawn) > "we just want to live in an area where there are no bad people" > To which Cole replied, "me too".
I haven't been ranting about racial issues. I've said before that the one good thing about Obama's election was the breaking of the color barrier. It's what Obama's agenda is bringing to the country that is the problem. It would have been an unmixed great thing if the color barrier had been broken by the election of someone like Condoleezza Rice, who would not have brought economic destruction along with her.
calvin wrote: > On Nov 7, 9:44 am, "The Giant Brain" <gi...@brain.invalid> wrote: >> Actually I am conservative on many fiscal issues
> Hard to believe.
>> and liberal on social issues.
> The country can survive abortion and same-sex marriage.
>> I think there should be a single-payer health system in this country, managed by >> the government
> Which couldn't manage a whorehouse.
>> and financed by making the wealthy pay their fair share of taxes.
> They're already paying most of the taxes. I wonder what you > think is their fair share. 100%? Or, more intelligently, just > slightly less than the percentage that would kill their incentive > to produce?
> Even more intelligent, which liberals will never understand, > would be to let the wealthy keep more of their money, which would > mean it stays invested and therefore boosts the economy and provides > jobs; and, far beyond what liberals are capable of understanding, > would increase tax revenue for the government.
>> Sputter on Cal...
> I intend to. The likes of you can't shut me up.
I can, though. By my count I've made you leave the group permanently at least three or four times.
calvin wrote: > On Nov 7, 9:55 am, "Stone me" <sun...@boulevard.hwd> wrote: >> ... >> Obama has by his taking the highest office in the land, made a >> section of people feel that the American Dream can still be >> something they can dream in too. >> I think of Nat King Cole, who, when taking up residence in a >> Hollywood street, was approached by one of his neighbours, >> (presumably after the word "n....r" was burned or dug into his lawn) >> "we just want to live in an area where there are no bad people" >> To which Cole replied, "me too".
> Actually I am conservative on many fiscal issues
Hard to believe.
> and liberal on social issues.
The country can survive abortion and same-sex marriage.
> I think there should be a single-payer health system in this country, managed > by > the government
Which couldn't manage a whorehouse.
> and financed by making the wealthy pay their fair share of taxes.
They're already paying most of the taxes. I wonder what you think is their fair share. 100%? Or, more intelligently, just slightly less than the percentage that would kill their incentive to produce?
Even more intelligent, which liberals will never understand, would be to let the wealthy keep more of their money, which would mean it stays invested and therefore boosts the economy and provides jobs; and, far beyond what liberals are capable of understanding, would increase tax revenue for the government.
> Sputter on Cal...
I intend to. The likes of you can't shut me up. --------------------------------------------------------
No one is trying to shut you up Cal, least of all me. I love to see you dittoheads rant and rave about the big bad liberals.
On Nov 7, 9:09 am, calvin <cri...@windstream.net> wrote:
> On Nov 7, 8:52 am, "The Giant Brain" <gi...@brain.invalid> wrote:
> > There, there Cal... Be a good fellow and drink your milk. > > Mommy is bringing you your tinfoil hat and will chase all > > the big bad liberals away...
> Unfortunately the liberals are here to stay. A grim consolation > in all this is that those liberals who are not so extreme, but have > enabled the extremists, are going to suffer for what they have > brought on everyone. > ...
calvin <cri...@windstream.net> wrote: >Even more intelligent, which liberals will never understand, >would be to let the wealthy keep more of their money, which would >mean it stays invested and therefore boosts the economy and provides >jobs;
I say let all of us keep most of our money. I don't need an "Agricultural Marketing Service" -- who does?
I look at that & I scream inwardly, over & over. It's a nightmare that never ends, an eternal anxiety attack.
"Office of Government Ethics"?! http://www.usoge.gov/ What they do to us in real life is even more sophisticated satire than anything you can read in Swift, Pope, or Voltaire.
____ On the question of playing continuo during a Mozart concerto, I can only reaffirm my belief that it is perfectly fine as long as it is inaudible.
On 6-Nov-2009, moviePig <pwall...@moviepig.com> wrote:
> > It's incoherent in context, i.e. I cannot relate it to the issue at > > hand. > > And, of course, since you refer to attitude and NOT action, it says > > nothing > > about censorship which, we apparently agree (and I might add... duh), > > requires action. You toss in that admission as a parenthetical comment, > > when it is, in fact, the crux of the problem!
> No. E.g., BB might abjure 'NC-17's because those are more expensive > rather than because they're naughty. In either instance, BB's > 'action' is the same. It's their 'attitude' in the second instance > that makes it censorship.
Sigh. I think we need to start from basics, here. Im not confident it will be productive, though. See below.
> > The bottom line is that none of this is of any value to the discussion. > > In > > intellectual terms, you're just blathering.
> No, I'm anwering a seeming inconsistency you perceived and queried > (and elided).
Fair enough. I was out of patience and it got the best of me.
> > BB is not impeding anything. They are simply offering less than you > > would > > like them to offer. Likewise, the local hardware store fails to offer > > NC-17 > > videos (or any videos, in fact). So, by your logic, they censor. That > > is > > where your reasoning breaks down.
> So, if the local KKK purchases and burns all the town's copies of > 'Uncle Tom's Cabin', they're just giving me the *choice* of not > reading it or moving?
LOL. That's called commerce, my friend. And if anyone thinks buying all available copies is a viable strategy to keep information out of the market, I'd love to be the supplier. Any supplier would just keep em coming until they stopped buying. In fact, other suppliers of such material, if they get wind of the the spike in sales, would flood that local market with similar items. Markets are dynamic, yet so many people treat them, analytically, as if they are static.
"It's a profit deal!" Steve Martin in "The Jerk"
> > > > hand waving = avoiding or failing to address relevant issues
> > > ("Hand waving" connotes something different to me. But never mind.)
> > I picked that up in college. How did you understand it?
> 'Hand waving', afaik, is when potentially complex details of a > presentation are deceptively dismissed as patently trivial ...i.e., > with the wave of a hand.
Easily close enough to my intended meaning.
> > You have to be specific. What is threatening their finances? If they > > are > > violating property rights, the many consequences are all a result of > > that > > injustice. If they are not violating prop rights (or making a credible > > threat to do so)...how are they threatening finances?
> E.g., your town's ultra-major employer chooses to terminate you for > supporting global-warming initiatives. You can relocate, but only at > huge financial burden...
No violation of anyones rights, there.
> > Look back through the thread. In many instances you either ignored > > pointed > > questions or your reply was unresponsive. The former is obviously > > intentional as I know you can read. The latter may not be.
> Oh, yes. *Now* I see all those pointed questions I ducked... Are you > kidding?
I'll paste them in, yet again (3rd time).
***************************** So...how does BB "impede my access" to NC-17 films simply by not providing them? And isnt every person or business that doesnt rent or sell them (like your neighbor, the drug store, hardware store, clothing shops, car dealerships, etc.) "impeding my access" to NC-17 films just as much as BB? That's the absurdity I predicted.
So... providing a service (selling books, DVDs, CDs) confers a duty? How so? What is the extent of that duty? And what meets the test of "fully open access"? And I notice you're now talking about what you "worthwhile zeal to thwart censorship" as your justification for a definition of censorship. That's circular, and gets you nowhere.
*****************************
Last time I pasted these in, you waxed general rather than addressing them specifically. The first time they were ignored completely. If you chose to address any of tyem specifgiucally, I would hoppe that it is this:
"So... providing a service (selling books, DVDs, CDs) confers a duty? How so?"
But (since Im now such an admirer of the Clintons) I suggest we hit Hillary's Russian "Reset Button", instead.
Here are a couple question that I ask you to answer specifically:
1. Is it fair to say that you believe in (or advocate) free speech defined at least as expansively as the current supreme court (ignoring campaign finance law..where they may now fix thier recent abysmal fuckup), to wit (essentially): Speech is protected unless it is a. obscene, or b. it advocates violence in a context where violence is imminent.
2. Do you agree that: The right to speak includes the right not to speak, the right to financially support those with whom you agree, and to withhold support from those with whom you disagree.
That's all for now. I want to take this in baby steps, first laying the groundwork before we build anything.
> On 6-Nov-2009, moviePig <pwall...@moviepig.com> wrote:
> > > It's incoherent in context, i.e. I cannot relate it to the issue at > > > hand. > > > And, of course, since you refer to attitude and NOT action, it says > > > nothing > > > about censorship which, we apparently agree (and I might add... duh), > > > requires action. You toss in that admission as a parenthetical comment, > > > when it is, in fact, the crux of the problem!
> > No. E.g., BB might abjure 'NC-17's because those are more expensive > > rather than because they're naughty. In either instance, BB's > > 'action' is the same. It's their 'attitude' in the second instance > > that makes it censorship.
> Sigh. I think we need to start from basics, here. Im not confident it will > be productive, though. See below.
> > > The bottom line is that none of this is of any value to the discussion. > > > In > > > intellectual terms, you're just blathering.
> > No, I'm anwering a seeming inconsistency you perceived and queried > > (and elided).
> Fair enough. I was out of patience and it got the best of me.
> > > BB is not impeding anything. They are simply offering less than you > > > would > > > like them to offer. Likewise, the local hardware store fails to offer > > > NC-17 > > > videos (or any videos, in fact). So, by your logic, they censor. That > > > is > > > where your reasoning breaks down.
> > So, if the local KKK purchases and burns all the town's copies of > > 'Uncle Tom's Cabin', they're just giving me the *choice* of not > > reading it or moving?
> LOL. That's called commerce, my friend. And if anyone thinks buying all > available copies is a viable strategy to keep information out of the market, > I'd love to be the supplier. Any supplier would just keep em coming until > they stopped buying. In fact, other suppliers of such material, if they get > wind of the the spike in sales, would flood that local market with similar > items. Markets are dynamic, yet so many people treat them, analytically, as > if they are static.
> "It's a profit deal!" > Steve Martin in "The Jerk"
> > > > > hand waving = avoiding or failing to address relevant issues
> > > > ("Hand waving" connotes something different to me. But never mind.)
> > > I picked that up in college. How did you understand it?
> > 'Hand waving', afaik, is when potentially complex details of a > > presentation are deceptively dismissed as patently trivial ...i.e., > > with the wave of a hand.
> Easily close enough to my intended meaning.
> > > You have to be specific. What is threatening their finances? If they > > > are > > > violating property rights, the many consequences are all a result of > > > that > > > injustice. If they are not violating prop rights (or making a credible > > > threat to do so)...how are they threatening finances?
> > E.g., your town's ultra-major employer chooses to terminate you for > > supporting global-warming initiatives. You can relocate, but only at > > huge financial burden...
> No violation of anyones rights, there.
> > > Look back through the thread. In many instances you either ignored > > > pointed > > > questions or your reply was unresponsive. The former is obviously > > > intentional as I know you can read. The latter may not be.
> > Oh, yes. *Now* I see all those pointed questions I ducked... Are you > > kidding?
> I'll paste them in, yet again (3rd time).
> ***************************** > So...how does BB "impede my access" to NC-17 films simply by not providing > them? And isnt every person or business that doesnt rent or sell them (like > your neighbor, the drug store, hardware store, clothing shops, car > dealerships, etc.) "impeding my access" to NC-17 films just as much as BB? > That's the absurdity I predicted.
> So... providing a service (selling books, DVDs, CDs) confers a duty? How > so? What is the extent of that duty? And what meets the test of "fully > open access"? And I notice you're now talking about what you "worthwhile > zeal to thwart censorship" as your justification for a definition of > censorship. That's circular, and gets you nowhere.
> *****************************
> Last time I pasted these in, you waxed general rather than addressing them > specifically. The first time they were ignored completely. If you chose to > address any of tyem specifgiucally, I would hoppe that it is this:
> "So... providing a service (selling books, DVDs, CDs) confers a duty? How > so?"
> But (since Im now such an admirer of the Clintons) I suggest we hit > Hillary's Russian "Reset Button", instead.
> Here are a couple question that I ask you to answer specifically:
> 1. Is it fair to say that you believe in (or advocate) free speech defined > at least as expansively as the current supreme court (ignoring campaign > finance law..where they may now fix thier recent abysmal fuckup), to wit > (essentially): > Speech is protected unless it is a. obscene, or b. it advocates violence in > a context where violence is imminent.
At least that expansively. Yes, I think so. (But if I were King, I might actually consider a few *additional* restrictions... starting with a baleful look at the advertising industry...)
> 2. Do you agree that: The right to speak includes the right not to speak, > the right to financially support those with whom you agree, and to withhold > support from those with whom you disagree.
> That's all for now. I want to take this in baby steps, first laying the > groundwork before we build anything.
Baby's first steps appear to be out onto the Interstate. E.g., it seems that, in the U.S. anyway, 'financial support' enables purchase of the public psyche. I.e., dollars *can* buy even "autonomous" votes... and thus power... and thus the wherewithal to bestow still more "financial support"...
No, I don't know how I'd rewrite the laws to fix this ...and, for all I know, your "hands-off" solution may be the best of a bad lot. But I do think the noble principles it protects *may* cascade to a social system that self-destructs (...which may explain why no extraterrestrial societies have ever advanced enough to visit us).
On 9-Nov-2009, moviePig <pwall...@moviepig.com> wrote:
> > 1. Is it fair to say that you believe in (or advocate) free speech > > defined > > at least as expansively as the current supreme court (ignoring campaign > > finance law..where they may now fix thier recent abysmal fuckup), to wit > > (essentially): > > Speech is protected unless it is a. obscene, or b. it advocates > > violence in > > a context where violence is imminent.
> At least that expansively. Yes, I think so. (But if I were King, I > might actually consider a few *additional* restrictions... starting > with a baleful look at the advertising industry...)
Is it possible for you to make a statement of principle, unhedged ("I think so") and without flippant dicta?
> > 2. Do you agree that: The right to speak includes the right not to > > speak, > > the right to financially support those with whom you agree, and to > > withhold > > support from those with whom you disagree. > Baby's first steps appear to be out onto the Interstate. E.g., it > seems that, in the U.S. anyway, 'financial support' enables purchase > of the public psyche. I.e., dollars *can* buy even "autonomous" > votes... and thus power... and thus the wherewithal to bestow still > more "financial support"...
"...purchase of the public psyche"?
I cant talk to you. You protect your conclusions with a wall of nonsense. Incoherence is your refuge.
> On 5-Nov-2009, TBerk <bayareab...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > A free market simply can not censor because there is no cercion (by > > > definition).
> > Are you saying they can't exert decision making influence over others > > using purse-string?
> No. Im saying exerting influence is not censorship. Coercive measures are > required to create censorship.
> And I invite you (as I did Pig-man) to define censorship as you see it. And > do me a favor...think about it, and examine your own definition to see if it > covers far more than you intend and/or leads to absurd conclusions.
> steve > -- > "DONT TREAD ON ME" > Gadsden Flag
I INVITE YOU TO SUCK MY COCK, STEWE. I'M NOT ABUSING OR CENSORING YOU, I'M ONLY EXERTING INFLUENCE.
why is this jerk off exactly like the southern girl in whatever works?
On 11-Nov-2009, sirblob2 <sirbl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> but but buut you say that to sooo maaany peeple, mebbe you're the > fucking problem?
That's one possibility. The other is that it's mostly the people who cant make sense of things that feel compelled to argue with me. -- "DONT TREAD ON ME" Gadsden Flag
On 12 nov, 00:01, "steve" <st...@steve.com> wrote:
> On 11-Nov-2009, sirblob2 <sirbl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > but but buut you say that to sooo maaany peeple, mebbe you're the > > fucking problem?
> That's one possibility. The other is that it's mostly the people who cant > make sense of things that feel compelled to argue with me. > --
no, the you and calvin variety introducing nutty far right off topic banter is silly. i mean how can someone with his own private language like you, exist? coercion is a bunny rabbit and free market doesnt censor because mama cass is a bunny rabbit, jesus, you prolly take yourself seriously cuz money allows you to, wow
sirblob2 <sirbl...@hotmail.com> wrote: >no, the you and calvin variety introducing nutty far right off topic >banter is silly. i mean how can someone with his own private language >like you, exist? coercion is a bunny rabbit and free market doesnt >censor because mama cass is a bunny rabbit, jesus, you prolly take >yourself seriously cuz money allows you to, wow
On Nov 11, 7:00 pm, sirblob2 <sirbl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> no, the you and calvin variety introducing nutty far right off topic > banter is silly. i mean how can someone with his own private language > like you, exist? coercion is a bunny rabbit and free market doesnt > censor because mama cass is a bunny rabbit, jesus, you prolly take > yourself seriously cuz money allows you to, wow
It's funny how much alike you and The Giant Brain sound; but aside from that (hear Willie Nelson's voice now): I am always on your mind ..... I am always on your mind.
On Nov 11, 8:28 pm, David Oberman <dober...@socal.rr.com> wrote:
> sirblob2 <sirbl...@hotmail.com> wrote: > >no, the you and calvin variety introducing nutty far right off topic > >banter is silly. i mean how can someone with his own private language > >like you, exist? coercion is a bunny rabbit and free market doesnt > >censor because mama cass is a bunny rabbit, jesus, you prolly take > >yourself seriously cuz money allows you to, wow
>(Pointed. But I'm not convinced you'd be listening past #1...)
I do like people to talk about me, as long as it's fair & balanced. But I would like to know what happened to Karl Rackwitz. He was a great contributor to this group for years.
> >(Pointed. But I'm not convinced you'd be listening past #1...)
> I do like people to talk about me, as long as it's fair & balanced. > But I would like to know what happened to Karl Rackwitz. He was a > great contributor to this group for years.
> And you-know-who is still missing . . . .
So is Alric Knebel, btw. (Perhaps it's the Rapture...)
On 12 nov, 02:28, David Oberman <dober...@socal.rr.com> wrote:
> sirblob2 <sirbl...@hotmail.com> wrote: > >no, the you and calvin variety introducing nutty far right off topic > >banter is silly. i mean how can someone with his own private language > >like you, exist? coercion is a bunny rabbit and free market doesnt > >censor because mama cass is a bunny rabbit, jesus, you prolly take > >yourself seriously cuz money allows you to, wow
> How would you describe:
> 1. Me?
you introduced me to stevie nicks and kate bush...
> 2. Sutpen?
i dont like his film writing
> 3. Karl Rackwitz?
cant remember ppl from a decade ago, the golden age of usenet when 30 ppl would talk about the use of nuns in a movie
> 4. Gaza?
he may be as fascist as steve but at least he doesnt think himself the roland barthes of the abramovich crowd
On 11-Nov-2009, sirblob2 <sirbl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > That's one possibility. The other is that it's mostly the people who > > cant > > make sense of things that feel compelled to argue with me. > > --
> no, the you and calvin variety introducing nutty far right off topic > banter is silly. i mean how can someone with his own private language > like you, exist? coercion is a bunny rabbit and free market doesnt > censor because mama cass is a bunny rabbit, jesus, you prolly take > yourself seriously cuz money allows you to, wow
LOL. Let's see....from this thread:
**************** coercion = the use of violence or it's credible threat
censorship = stifling expression by coercive measures
A free market simply can not censor because there is no cercion (by definition). ****************
Are these definitions (and conclusion) difficult to understand (and apply) and/or are they highly specialized (my own private language)?
From dictionary.com
co·er·cion
–noun 1. the act of coercing; use of force or intimidation to obtain compliance. 2. force or the power to use force in gaining compliance, as by a government or police force.
Censorship is a little more difficult, because PM and I were talking about censorship as a moral matter...so definitions that refer to such universally acceptable things as "self censorship" obviously dont apply. But Im OK, anyway.
From Wiktionary:
censorship The use of state or group power to control freedom of expression, such as passing laws to prevent media from being published or propagated.
From Princeton.edu
censor - ban: forbid the public distribution of ( a movie or a newspaper)
So Im clearly not alone in the linguistic wilderness. I'll leave it to anyone who's reading to judge if my definitions are coherent.
The conclusion follows immediately (free market = non coercive market, and coercion is required to censor, therefore...)
As for this:
> you prolly take > yourself seriously cuz money allows you to,
Nope...no idea what you mean. A poor man can take himself just as seriously as a rich man...and often with good reason, I'll venture.
|
