Is this Andrew Breitbart guy literally insane?

dc1971 said:
Where do you learn this stuff, Ziggy?
Click to expand...

Wildcat just pointed it out. Most newspapers and TV news stations are for-profit corporations. This proposed amendment would remove any free speech rights these corporations have. The government would be able to shut them down, or prevent them from talking about whatever the government didn't want them talking about.

Hell, this very subject came up during Citizens United. The government was asked by one of the judges about why McCain-Feingold couldn't be used to silence journalists working for corporations. Their response wasn't that it couldn't be, but that it wouldn't be. In other words, they thought they had the power, and were just promising not to abuse it.
 
Grizzly Adams said:
And since when is being an "activist" with the "Tea Party" countable in a list of supporting evidence of dickishness?
Click to expand...

Since the Tea Party was stripped of any dignity by the likes of such nut-jobs as Dick Armey and Sarah Palin!
 
Ziggurat said:
Wildcat just pointed it out. Most newspapers and TV news stations are for-profit corporations. This proposed amendment would remove any free speech rights these corporations have. The government would be able to shut them down, or prevent them from talking about whatever the government didn't want them talking about.

Hell, this very subject came up during Citizens United. The government was asked by one of the judges about why McCain-Feingold couldn't be used to silence journalists working for corporations. Their response wasn't that it couldn't be, but that it wouldn't be. In other words, they thought they had the power, and were just promising not to abuse it.
Click to expand...

And the end result was...?
 
Ziggurat said:
They're not bonkers, they're left-wingers. Remember, Peephole just said that being right-wing is synonymous with insanity, so obviously being left-wing must be synonymous with being sane.

That Peephole, he's so smart!
Click to expand...

So good of you to clear up this whole left-wing/right-wing paradigm, Ziggy!

Thumbs up, dude!
 
dc1971 said:
Yeah!

People you don't agree with Ziggy!

You constantly make this mistake of calling them "left-wingers"!

You might want to re-evaluate certain phraseology you use in the future.
Click to expand...

Ahem. Let me direct your attention to the impetus for my post:

Peephole said:
Because it's a deranged right-winger (yeah I know, aren't they all?) going absolutely bonkers.

It tickles my funny bone.
Click to expand...

The right-winger vs. left-winger dichotomy is Peephole's, not mine. And he was the one, not me, who posited that everyone on one side was deranged. If you find my phraseology distasteful, complain to him. I was just pointing out the logical corollary of his statement. But since I believe his original statement is complete tosh, one should read my reply as sarcasm. So you have badly missed the mark, and should refocus your ire elsewhere.

ETA: I see that you not only missed the entire meaning of my post, you also missed your own reply to my post, and felt the need to respond again having forgotten that you already said essentially the same thing. Impressive.
 
Last edited:
Ziggurat said:
Ahem. Let me direct your attention to the impetus for my post:



The right-winger vs. left-winger dichotomy is Peephole's, not mine. And he was the one, not me, who posited that everyone on one side was deranged. If you find my phraseology distasteful, complain to him. I was just pointing out the logical corollary of his statement. But since I believe his original statement is complete tosh, one should read my reply as sarcasm. So you have badly missed the mark, and should refocus your ire elsewhere.
Click to expand...

And you posited even further. That should make you guilty of furthering the "left/right" dichotomy!
 
Ziggurat said:
ETA: I see that you not only missed the entire meaning of my post, you also missed your own reply to my post, and felt the need to respond again having forgotten that you already said essentially the same thing. Impressive.
Click to expand...

Actually, Ziggy, it is YOU who have missed the WHOLE meaning of the OP! Yes, here we are again bagging on the OWS when this was supposed to be criticism about Andrew Breitbart (who looks like Bozo the Clown in this video BTW)! And who is the guilty party for turning the conversation around??

I see Ziggy, I see Brainster, I see Virus.... AGAIN!
 
dc1971 said:
Actually, Ziggy, it is YOU who have missed the WHOLE meaning of the OP!
Click to expand...

I wasn't responding to the OP in the post you objected to. So... fail. The worst you can accuse me of is a derail, but threads always drift.

Really, you need to up your game, this is just getting sad.
 
dc1971 said:
So, in other words, people are still free to say what they want and can still criticize politicians? No?
Click to expand...

Right now they can. But the proposed amendment would remove those protections. Haven't you been paying any attention?
 
leftysergeant said:
So? This is a good thing.
Click to expand...

Indeed. Due process? We're having none of that. Freedom of speech? Don't be absurd: newspapers will print what we tell them to print. With corporations shackled to the arbitrary whims of government, only the mega-wealthy individuals will have influence. And that's the way we liberals like it!
 
Ziggurat said:
Right now they can. But the proposed amendment would remove those protections. Haven't you been paying any attention?
Click to expand...
You have derailed the topic, but, since you bring it up, the only thing that the sludge monster and Fox Boobs have to worry about is that they can no longer create the news to order to advance the wishes of scum like the Koch roaches.

What the sludge monster has been doing for the last two years is not journalism. I do not know what to call it, but I am sure there is some applicable phrase somewhere in the Criminal Codes.
 
Ziggurat said:
Indeed. Due process? We're having none of that. Freedom of speech? Don't be absurd: newspapers will print what we tell them to print. With corporations shackled to the arbitrary whims of government, only the mega-wealthy individuals will have influence. And that's the way we liberals like it!
Click to expand...
1) You're still trying to keep the spotlight off of a worthless blob of slime who went off on his political enemies in a drunken rage.
2) You have pulled something out of the wrong end of your torso and called it a feature of the bill.
 
stokes234 said:
That's a ridiculous thing to say and you know it. Many people who consider themselves communists merely believe that wealth should be distributed differently, not that millions should die to accomplish that. You doubtless believe the free market to be a good idea, but that wouldn't make it fair for me to accuse you of supporting pinochet's murderous and torturous regime.
Click to expand...

So to you it's a matter of which civil rights the political proponents intend to violate ; to "merely" be enslaved by state sponsored theft vs being killed ? Of course the major communist regimes were consolidated with mass murders far outstripping Nazi atrocities + wars together. You may rightly argue that this is not fundamental to communism, but it's so consistent a correlate that it must be considered a consequence of that system.

This is quite different from the isolated Pinochet case, where a murderous military junta leader oddly created free market and constitutional reforms. We can't excuse the regular pattern of mass murders in communist Russia, China, Cuba, Cambodia, Laos, Angola, N.Korea as an anomaly so handily.

===
The law already recognizes a distinction between commercial speech and political speech; for example the FDA or whomever can regulate commercial speech. However the SCOTUS has ruled that commercial contributions are political speech and protected. IMO it's not smart to completely silence corporate interests from influencing elections as they do have legitimate concerns that need to be heard. OTOH there seems too much power associated with commercial interests. I don't see a good solution.
 
Last edited:
stevea said:
The law already recognizes a distinction between commercial speech and political speech; for example the FDA or whomever can regulate commercial speech. However the SCOTUS has ruled that commercial contributions are political speech and protected. IMO it's not smart to completely silence corporate interests from influencing elections as they do have legitimate concerns that need to be heard. OTOH there seems too much power associated with commercial interests.
Click to expand...
Horse hockey. The share holders of the corporation can stand in line with the rest of us waiting for our elected officials to grant them an audience. The corporations have other things to do (under government regulation, of course.)
I don't see a good solution.
Click to expand...

Look a little harder. We could just stop killing countries that try to go socialist. We do not owe it to investor-class maggots that they have a safe environment off shore.

All of which, of course, has nothing to do with the fact that Andy is pond scum.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom