Is this Andrew Breitbart guy literally insane?

BenBurch said:
Not sure how you got that opinion from reading this. Freedom of the press never was a personal right - a city might have a couple presses only in that era. Not like now where we personally have that ability or could.
Click to expand...

I really don't know how you can arrive at this conclusion. The constitution makes no mention of the number of presses, or even who controls them. What it says is that the government cannot restrict their freedom. So if one person has a press, that one person can do whatever they want with it. If everyone has a press, everyone can do what they want with it. It's a negative right, not a positive right, but it's a right that the first amendment extends to everyone.

This would not have the effect you imagine.
Click to expand...

The proposed amendment would make it possible for government to shut down media outlets for criticizing politicians. You can claim that this isn't what would actually happen, but that doesn't change the fact that the amendment would allow it to happen. And that's bad enough.
 
WildCat said:
Are you kidding? OWS got a Dem Congressman to introduce an amendment to the Constitution that would basically repeal the 1st Amendment and clear the path for the government to censor the corporate news media.
Click to expand...
Cow cookies. Corporations would not be able to bribe candidates any more. whoop

It might hurt political steering committees like Fox Boobs, but not actual journalists.
 
Ziggurat said:
The proposed amendment would make it possible for government to shut down media outlets for criticizing politicians. You can claim that this isn't what would actually happen, but that doesn't change the fact that the amendment would allow it to happen. And that's bad enough.
Click to expand...
Care to show us the section that does that?
 
WildCat said:
Are you kidding? OWS got a Dem Congressman to introduce an amendment to the Constitution that would basically repeal the 1st Amendment and clear the path for the government to censor the corporate news media.
Click to expand...

Not even close on so many levels. One bill from one congressman does not compare the wholesale sway the Breitbart and the tea party has over the GOP. Breitbart was able to use his misleading videos to whip up the GOP into a froth, holding hearings and eventually defunding organizations. The Tea Party is hosting GOP debates. To compare the two movements and their relative sway on the established political parties is a false equivalency. If a bill is introduced to hold rating agencies accountable for the B.S. they pulled prior to the financial collapse, would that be a caving to OWS?

The GOP is the party of the Tea Party, Limbaugh, Breitbart and conventions that host panel discussions by white nationalists. No national leader in the GOP will stand up to any of these groups, so that is what it is. I hope someday someone in the party comes to their senses, but I am not holding my breath. It looks like Powell was the last Republican with any principles or backbone.

Daredelvis
 
TimCallahan said:
Okay, so he's acting like a jerk in the video; he's a Tea Party activist; he has quoted NAACP speakers out of context; etc. No, he's not insane; nor is he on drugs. He's just a dick.
Click to expand...

I've had a few back and forths with Andy on Twitter... he's not so much of a dick as he is an opportunist however I have to show some respect for someone who stands up for what he believes, will take the time to go out in public (and on air) to explain himself, and he's someone who's willing to take the time to talk and justify his disagreements with anyone who "tweets" or messages him!

That said, I would have to point at him if someone were to ask what people were responsible for turning the Tea Party into a Looney Tunes Circus!
 
BenBurch said:
Not sure how you got that opinion from reading this. Freedom of the press never was a personal right - a city might have a couple presses only in that era. Not like now where we personally have that ability or could. This would not have the effect you imagine.
Click to expand...
Yes, it was. It means that Congress cannot restrict the written word. "Freedom of the press" was not written just for newspaper journalists, but for everyone and anyone. The written word is just as protected as the spoken word, and in modern times with broadcast and digital media the lines between them has been blurred to the point of irrelevance. And yes, the 1st Amendment appplies to broadcast and digital media even though those didn't exist at the time. The intent is clear - Congress is not to legislate what can be communicated.

Under this amendment the government could require the Chicago Tribune and every other corporate news organization, whether it be broadcast, print, podcast, etc, to submit all copy to government censors for approval.
 
WildCat said:
Under this amendment the government could require the Chicago Tribune and every other corporate news organization, whether it be broadcast, print, podcast, etc, to submit all copy to government censors for approval.
Click to expand...

Show me the wording that leads you to make such a claim.
 
daredelvis said:
I will see your tu quoque and raise you a false equivalency. While members of the tea party and the OWS movement, may share distasteful attributes, there is no equivalent wholesale embrace of OWS by mainstream Democrats. The most odious OWS members do not feature prominently in the national Democratic party, OWS has no sway similar to what is seen with Tea Party fanatics involvement in the GOP.

Breitbart, Limbaugh, and Beck belong to the GOP, and the GOP belongs to them. Nothing on the left comes close to their insanity, or sway.
Daredelvis
Click to expand...

That's moving the goalposts. The original claim was that OWS doesn't host speeches by white supremacists. But they do hold speeches by Communists, who are just as bad.
 
Last edited:
Virus said:
That's moving the goalposts. The original claim was that OWS doesn't host speeches by white supremacists. But they do hold speeches by Communists, who are just a different brand of supremacist idiots.
Click to expand...
Unsubstantiated.
 
Virus said:
That's moving the goalposts. The original claim was that OWS doesn't host speeches by white supremacists. But they do hold speeches by Communists, who are just as bad.
Click to expand...

Ahhh yes, here we go again with COMMUNISM BAAAAAAD!!

Running out of issues to discuss, Virus?
 
Looking at the video in the OP again, I'm still trying to figure out what the hell this twit was talking about when he kept screaming, "Stop raping people." Does anyone have any ideas?
 
TimCallahan said:
Looking at the video in the OP again, I'm still trying to figure out what the hell this twit was talking about when he kept screaming, "Stop raping people." Does anyone have any ideas?
Click to expand...

Thwere's been more than a few rapes in occupy camps across the country. Notably in New York a deaf man was raped and a woman-only tent was erected so they could sleep safely.

Who's this white nationalist everyone's going on about?
 
leftysergeant said:
Show me the wording that leads you to make such a claim.
Click to expand...
SECTION 1. The rights protected by the Constitution
9 of the United States are the rights of natural persons and
10 do not extend to for-profit corporations, limited liability
11 companies, or other private entities established for busi12
ness purposes or to promote business interests under the
13 laws of any state, the United States, or any foreign state.
Click to expand...

No Constitutional rights for for-profit corporations.
​
​
​
​
​

 
Virus said:
It is bad. Or do you still believe the jury is out on Communism?
Click to expand...

I don't BELIEVE anything of the sort! You are the one believing the good and bad of a 'dreamed up' economic system that really never took full effect!



I'm discussing this one. It was stated that OWS wouldn't touch the sort of fruitcakes that CPAC does. I beg to differ.
Click to expand...

Gee imagine that! Fruitcakes among a mass group of people! Tell me it can't be true!
 
Ziggurat said:
They're not bonkers, they're left-wingers.
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom