Freedom of Speech and Censorship

Jeanie wrote:

Me? Hooked on a politician???? HAHAHAHAHAHA!!
Oh sorry sweetie, I'm not laughing at you but damn that's such a funny idea, me being 'hooked' on a politician!

he's not a politician...he's a talk show host...challenges people to think different...


see the "barack the magic negro" thread.

rush calls a liberal (who doesn't think barak obama is "black enough) as being a racist and rush is painted the racist...pretty much sums up the debate in America these days.

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

I have listened to both of them and thought they were extremely hateful and condescending. All they ever talk about is how liberals are ruining the country and how people are idiots if they think this or that. It's a huge turn off.

true he pokes fun at the left...but he is engaging in philosophical arguments....and has some interesting things to say, which is why people listen....when he derides liberalism, it's not personal, it's a rejection of that philosophy...one of my favorite monologues ever:


Now, conservatism, people who are conservative will look at a culture and look at a society, such as ours, and we will have the utmost faith in the individual. We believe that the individual, when properly educated and informed (and, by the way, unshackled), we believe the individual has the ability to triumph over whatever odds that individual faces. We believe that extraordinary people are simply ordinary people could go extraordinary things. The great among us never set out to be great. They became great by virtue of accolades as a result of their achievements. Liberals on the other hand look at the average American with condescension. They don't think the average American has what it takes. The average American is stupider than the liberal. The average American doesn't have the ambition or the wherewithal to overcome these odds -- and besides they make a victim out of everybody, and they do it by saying, "That black doesn't have a chance because of racism and white people. The illegal doesn't have a chance because of the nativist and protectionist among us. Women don't have a chance because of sexism and so forth," and so the liberal mind-set and construct of people is entirely negative. It's condescending; it is arrogant, and it is almost holds people in contempt.

Conservatism is just the opposite. Now, everything descends from that. When liberals get power, politically, and start putting together policy, what's the policy going to be? "Empower government, because those schlubs out there cannot live their lives properly, happily, without us. Senior citizens won't eat; the poor won't get off the soup lines. The only people that make it big are the rich, and we've gotta find a way to take away from them what they've worked for." Conservatism, when it gets power and starts defining policy, you get things like welfare reform, which is rooted in the belief that people who work, which is where many people derive their identity, will experience achievement and pride, will be motivated to go even further. You can take this simple definition of conservatism versus liberalism and apply it to virtually any aspect of the political spectrum, and you'll see that it applies. So it's not complicated at all to explain the difference. This is what has been missing in Republican Party politics, philosophically for way too many years, and needs to return....

Conservatism looks at average people and sees mountains of potential, wants only the best for everybody because that's how you get a great country. Liberalism looks at the average American with contempt, sees hopelessness, no chance whatsoever of that person becoming anything without the assistance of liberals and big government and so forth. Now, I want to illustrate this in another way, just to show you how conservatism and liberalism actually are and how the liberals end up in succeeding, in some cases, in misdefining conservatism

Purple Hawk wrote:

true he pokes fun at the left...but he is engaging in philosophical arguments....and has some interesting things to say, which is why people listen....when he derides liberalism, it's not personal, it's a rejection of that philosophy...one of my favorite monologues ever:


Now, conservatism, people who are conservative will look at a culture and look at a society, such as ours, and we will have the utmost faith in the individual. We believe that the individual, when properly educated and informed (and, by the way, unshackled), we believe the individual has the ability to triumph over whatever odds that individual faces. We believe that extraordinary people are simply ordinary people could go extraordinary things. The great among us never set out to be great. They became great by virtue of accolades as a result of their achievements. Liberals on the other hand look at the average American with condescension. They don't think the average American has what it takes. The average American is stupider than the liberal. The average American doesn't have the ambition or the wherewithal to overcome these odds -- and besides they make a victim out of everybody, and they do it by saying, "That black doesn't have a chance because of racism and white people. The illegal doesn't have a chance because of the nativist and protectionist among us. Women don't have a chance because of sexism and so forth," and so the liberal mind-set and construct of people is entirely negative. It's condescending; it is arrogant, and it is almost holds people in contempt.

Conservatism is just the opposite. Now, everything descends from that. When liberals get power, politically, and start putting together policy, what's the policy going to be? "Empower government, because those schlubs out there cannot live their lives properly, happily, without us. Senior citizens won't eat; the poor won't get off the soup lines. The only people that make it big are the rich, and we've gotta find a way to take away from them what they've worked for." Conservatism, when it gets power and starts defining policy, you get things like welfare reform, which is rooted in the belief that people who work, which is where many people derive their identity, will experience achievement and pride, will be motivated to go even further. You can take this simple definition of conservatism versus liberalism and apply it to virtually any aspect of the political spectrum, and you'll see that it applies. So it's not complicated at all to explain the difference. This is what has been missing in Republican Party politics, philosophically for way too many years, and needs to return....

Conservatism looks at average people and sees mountains of potential, wants only the best for everybody because that's how you get a great country. Liberalism looks at the average American with contempt, sees hopelessness, no chance whatsoever of that person becoming anything without the assistance of liberals and big government and so forth. Now, I want to illustrate this in another way, just to show you how conservatism and liberalism actually are and how the liberals end up in succeeding, in some cases, in misdefining conservatism

I dont think you could paint with a broader stroke.

Purple Hawk wrote:

true he pokes fun at the left...but he is engaging in philosophical arguments....and has some interesting things to say, which is why people listen....when he derides liberalism, it's not personal, it's a rejection of that philosophy...one of my favorite monologues ever:


Now, conservatism, people who are conservative will look at a culture and look at a society, such as ours, and we will have the utmost faith in the individual. We believe that the individual, when properly educated and informed (and, by the way, unshackled), we believe the individual has the ability to triumph over whatever odds that individual faces. We believe that extraordinary people are simply ordinary people could go extraordinary things. The great among us never set out to be great. They became great by virtue of accolades as a result of their achievements. Liberals on the other hand look at the average American with condescension. They don't think the average American has what it takes. The average American is stupider than the liberal. The average American doesn't have the ambition or the wherewithal to overcome these odds -- and besides they make a victim out of everybody, and they do it by saying, "That black doesn't have a chance because of racism and white people. The illegal doesn't have a chance because of the nativist and protectionist among us. Women don't have a chance because of sexism and so forth," and so the liberal mind-set and construct of people is entirely negative. It's condescending; it is arrogant, and it is almost holds people in contempt.

Conservatism is just the opposite. Now, everything descends from that. When liberals get power, politically, and start putting together policy, what's the policy going to be? "Empower government, because those schlubs out there cannot live their lives properly, happily, without us. Senior citizens won't eat; the poor won't get off the soup lines. The only people that make it big are the rich, and we've gotta find a way to take away from them what they've worked for." Conservatism, when it gets power and starts defining policy, you get things like welfare reform, which is rooted in the belief that people who work, which is where many people derive their identity, will experience achievement and pride, will be motivated to go even further. You can take this simple definition of conservatism versus liberalism and apply it to virtually any aspect of the political spectrum, and you'll see that it applies. So it's not complicated at all to explain the difference. This is what has been missing in Republican Party politics, philosophically for way too many years, and needs to return....

Conservatism looks at average people and sees mountains of potential, wants only the best for everybody because that's how you get a great country. Liberalism looks at the average American with contempt, sees hopelessness, no chance whatsoever of that person becoming anything without the assistance of liberals and big government and so forth. Now, I want to illustrate this in another way, just to show you how conservatism and liberalism actually are and how the liberals end up in succeeding, in some cases, in misdefining conservatism

He really shouldn't quit his day job and start trying to read minds. :rolleyes: That was one of the biggest crocks of shit I've ever wasted my time reading on here and the 'us vs them' shtick is getting so boring.

Jeanie wrote:

Any thoughts folks???

Seems to be a lot of it going around lately.

i must not be paying attention. or as a humanties student i just dont give a fuck as i always say what i want and am more than ready to back up my words. any media that is censoring is not media i pay any heed to anyway. so if the wowsers want their power then eventually they will reap what they sow. meanwhile i'll just sit back, laugh my arse off at the narrrowminded fools and continue to counter any influence they may have over my children.

Jeanie wrote:

Never do I play couch commando quite so quickly as when Johnny or Peter or a dozen others pop onto the screen. I have no patience for political "bites" on the radio and I avoid most newsprint.
But I'm not so sure the ostrich approach is working. Certainly by paying attention we are only encouraging the bastards, but one has to wonder if ignoring them isn't also allowing them carte blanche. (sp?)

I'd love to find a way to advocate and support more open minded media.
Love to know the best avenues to take to win back our lost freedom of speech. And I would truly love to find a way to stop this erosion of our personal, artistic and political freedoms once and for all. I'm tired of censorship. Truly tired of it.

its not ignorance, it's avoidance. i have a beautiful sidestep.

and may i suggest the green left weekly for your alternate news. i'm sure you also have a socialist alliance in your fair city. seek them out and come get arrested with me at the APEC meeting this september.

catefrances wrote:

and may i suggest the green left weekly

That hardly sounds like an unbiased publication. . .

Jeanie, I don't choose my friends based on their politics either. To be honest conversations about politics generally don't excite me that much, and usually I'd much rather talk about kayaking, or diving, or fishing, or the latest episode of the chaser. I just thought that that characterisation of liberalism and conservatism was fairly ridiculous.