Free speech is great as long as I agree with what's being said

[TakeYouToTasker]

 

I feel I have addressed it. His board is not persuasive in the least, it is pretty much the opposite. he has the right to voice his opinion, even if it is not going to bring about the change he wants.

No, you haven't addressed it at all. I'm speaking to larger conceptual issues, and you're talking about an individual piece of signage.

[Cugalabanza]

I doubt I used it incorrectly. When haven't you put up a canard? You "thing" we are the same person? BTW, my screen name is 3rdnlng as in 3rd and long.

 

A canard is by definition a false statement, groundless, intentionally misleading. I made some statements in another thread which you referred to as canards. They were true statements. I don't know for sure what your intent was, but I think you meant to suggest that my statements were trivially true in a way that diverted the focus of the argument.

 

When haven't I put up a canard? I don't know. I don't think I've posted anything untrue around here. Points of contention, sure. Differences of opinion and perspective, yes. Maybe you could give an example of a canard that I have posted. I don't think you will find one.

 

Please forgive my typo. Obviously, I meant to type "think," not "thing." I hope it didn't confuse you too much.

[Adam]

No, you haven't addressed it at all. I'm speaking to larger conceptual issues, and you're talking about an individual piece of signage.

Whether you are talking about individual signage or just stupid things people say, politics is about the art of persuading people. This signage is basically what the people who are becoming the face of the conservative movement are doing. I don't know when it started, but I am seeing it everywhere- in person, on billboards and on the internet. They are free to do it, but it won't get them anywhere and I consider it a shame.

 

One person even told me they won't sacrifice their morals for the sake of electibility. My response was that she can't take her ball and go home, because the left already took the ball away.

[3rdnlng]

A canard is by definition a false statement, groundless, intentionally misleading. I made some statements in another thread which you referred to as canards. They were true statements. I don't know for sure what your intent was, but I think you meant to suggest that my statements were trivially true in a way that diverted the focus of the argument.

 

When haven't I put up a canard? I don't know. I don't think I've posted anything untrue around here. Points of contention, sure. Differences of opinion and perspective, yes. Maybe you could give an example of a canard that I have posted. I don't think you will find one.

 

Please forgive my typo. Obviously, I meant to type "think," not "thing." I hope it didn't confuse you too much.

 

Sure Sue, tell me that I misused a word sometime in the past and then ask me to look up examples of your canards. You are a typical liberal that wants everything handed to you.

[TakeYouToTasker]

Whether you are talking about individual signage or just stupid things people say, politics is about the art of persuading people. This signage is basically what the people who are becoming the face of the conservative movement are doing. I don't know when it started, but I am seeing it everywhere- in person, on billboards and on the internet. They are free to do it, but it won't get them anywhere and I consider it a shame.

 

One person even told me they won't sacrifice their morals for the sake of electibility. My response was that she can't take her ball and go home, because the left already took the ball away.

This is the point where I will remind you that people can become very dangerous.

 

Once someone realizes that their views have been completely marginalized (right or wrong), and their ability to address the situatuation peacfully and politically has been removed, and there is a plurality of like minded people, violence is bound to ensue.

[Cugalabanza]

Sure Sue, tell me that I misused a word sometime in the past and then ask me to look up examples of your canards. You are a typical liberal that wants everything handed to you.

 

It was your own pet word that you misused. It was in the thread you started, "The biggest loser out of this election could be the electorate." Replies #3 and #6.

 

And now you're the one who's saying, "When haven't you put up a canard?" I think you need to dust off your dictionary.

 

I want everything handed to me? What the hell are you talking about? I've never had anything handed to me. That's your own crazy talking (screaming) point. It has no basis in reality. It's a canard.

 

Once someone realizes that their views have been completely marginalized (right or wrong), and their ability to address the situatuation peacfully and politically has been removed, and there is a plurality of like minded people, violence is bound to ensue.

 

I agree with you here. It's a good point. It's better to let light shine on crazy. Hide it away and it grows like a fungus.

Edited November 26, 2012 by gringo starr

[/dev/null]

A canard is by definition a false statement, groundless, intentionally misleading.

 

I thought it was some kind of half man, half canary, half duck that Al Gore was fighting.

[....lybob]

A canard is by definition a false statement, groundless, intentionally misleading. I made some statements in another thread which you referred to as canards. They were true statements. I don't know for sure what your intent was, but I think you meant to suggest that my statements were trivially true in a way that diverted the focus of the argument.

 

When haven't I put up a canard? I don't know. I don't think I've posted anything untrue around here. Points of contention, sure. Differences of opinion and perspective, yes. Maybe you could give an example of a canard that I have posted. I don't think you will find one.

 

Please forgive my typo. Obviously, I meant to type "think," not "thing." I hope it didn't confuse you too much.

3rdrate uses canard because he is a flibbertigibbet

[Adam]

This is the point where I will remind you that people can become very dangerous.

 

Once someone realizes that their views have been completely marginalized (right or wrong), and their ability to address the situatuation peacfully and politically has been removed, and there is a plurality of like minded people, violence is bound to ensue.

I completely agree with you. I was on a message board the other day, telling people that they need to come to the table, compromise and make some progress. They told me that that would be sacrificing their principles and they'd rather have nothing. Makes no sense to me. Very sad.

[Rob's House]

 

I completely agree with you. I was on a message board the other day, telling people that they need to come to the table, compromise and make some progress. They told me that that would be sacrificing their principles and they'd rather have nothing. Makes no sense to me. Very sad.

We've talked about this before. Compromise is just an empty word without proper context. If I want spending cuts and you want tax hikes we may be able to compromise. But if you want tax hikes & I want tax cuts, how do we compromise. You saying instead of raising a tax rate 10% you'll compromise & only raise it 5% you're not compromising at all. I'm giving up my position & you give up nothing.

[Adam]

We've talked about this before. Compromise is just an empty word without proper context. If I want spending cuts and you want tax hikes we may be able to compromise. But if you want tax hikes & I want tax cuts, how do we compromise. You saying instead of raising a tax rate 10% you'll compromise & only raise it 5% you're not compromising at all. I'm giving up my position & you give up nothing.

How about we raise the rates slightly, tie entitlements to the percentage of the GDP the deficit holds and maybe allocate a break to corporations who move jobs to this country (I know I don't fully understand the trade deficit, but I heard a very good explanation, which helped). I also think just as we should try to legistlate this mistake of a billboard away, we should stop trying to legislate so-called religous morals- I can accept when people say that the country was founded on Christian principles. What I disagree with is that it means we were founded on Christianity.

[Jauronimo]

We've talked about this before. Compromise is just an empty word without proper context. If I want spending cuts and you want tax hikes we may be able to compromise. But if you want tax hikes & I want tax cuts, how do we compromise. You saying instead of raising a tax rate 10% you'll compromise & only raise it 5% you're not compromising at all. I'm giving up my position & you give up nothing.

People constantly confuse compromise with an actual solution. Compromise may be the way an agreement is reached but suggesting the answer is always somewhere in the middle is just asinine. If two parties are trying to put out a fire and party A desires to extinguish the flames with styrofoam and party B would like to douse the flames with water, is the answer necessarily 50% styrofoam and 50% water?

 

In politics, that is likely to be the end result, but clearly compromise isn't the universal answer.

Edited November 26, 2012 by Jauronimo

[Cugalabanza]

We've talked about this before. Compromise is just an empty word without proper context. If I want spending cuts and you want tax hikes we may be able to compromise. But if you want tax hikes & I want tax cuts, how do we compromise. You saying instead of raising a tax rate 10% you'll compromise & only raise it 5% you're not compromising at all. I'm giving up my position & you give up nothing.

 

That’s a good point, but your example of context seems incomplete.

 

It’s like if you were having an argument with a woman. You say that you want to have sex with her 25 times. She says she wants to get a court order forcing you to move to a different county. She might be willing to compromise by saying that you get to maintain your residence in the same county, but you are not allowed within 300 feet of her residence. You might initially complain that it’s not a compromise because you have given up your position entirely. However, if more context is given which reveals that you have been pestering this poor woman and stalking her for years, then it seems reasonable and it becomes clear that both sides have made some concessions which are appropriate.

 

Another example of additional context might be a recent election in which the majority of voters have chosen one particular fiscal vision over another. This particular contextual element is called leverage.

 

 

[Rob's House]

Another example of additional context might be a recent election in which the majority of voters have chosen one particular fiscal vision over another. This particular contextual element is called leverage.

 

 

That's why we have a bicameral Federalist system. So that a bare majority can't impose its will on the rest of the society. And I think you'd have to admit it's a bit of a stretch to say election results are evidence of any level of understanding of a fiscal vision.

[Adam]

That's why we have a bicameral Federalist system. So that a bare majority can't impose its will on the rest of the society. And I think you'd have to admit it's a bit of a stretch to say election results are evidence of any level of understanding of a fiscal vision.

What do you think about the use of the fillibuster?

[/dev/null]

Another example of additional context might be a recent election in which the majority of voters have chosen one particular fiscal vision over another. This particular contextual element is called leverage.

 

 

That's why we have a bicameral Federalist system. So that a bare majority can't impose its will on the rest of the society. And I think you'd have to admit it's a bit of a stretch to say election results are evidence of any level of understanding of a fiscal vision.

 

A bicameral system in which fiscal policy (spending and revenue bills) originate in the House of Representatives. This branch is held by a Republican majority. So by gringo's standards, the American people have chosen Republican fiscal policy

[Cugalabanza]

That's why we have a bicameral Federalist system. So that a bare majority can't impose its will on the rest of the society. And I think you'd have to admit it's a bit of a stretch to say election results are evidence of any level of understanding of a fiscal vision.

 

Ok, maybe it's overstated. But it is worth something significant at the negotiating table. More than anything else, this presidential election was about two different views of our economy. It's not a mandate one way or another, but it can't be ignored.

 

And "level of understanding?" I'd say that's a variable that is unavoidable. Ignorance and misunderstanding exists on both sides of the argument. I think it comes out even. Anyway, at the heart of this argument, it's not that complicated. Comes down to something fundamental about people on both sides.

[Rob's House]

Ok, maybe it's overstated. But it is worth something significant at the negotiating table. More than anything else, this presidential election was about two different views of our economy. It's not a mandate one way or another, but it can't be ignored.

 

And "level of understanding?" I'd say that's a variable that is unavoidable. Ignorance and misunderstanding exists on both sides of the argument. I think it comes out even. Anyway, at the heart of this argument, it's not that complicated. Comes down to something fundamental about people on both sides.

1. I don't think a majority of our electorate has the foggiest idea what our fiscal situation is.

 

2. When you look at the demographic breakdown of the election it's clear a substantial % based their votes on skin tone and genitalia.

 

What do you think about the use of the fillibuster?

Depends on what it's being used for, but if I had to speak generally, I like it.

[CosmicBills]

The entire concept of "hate speech" is nothing but a glaring example of ignorance and narrow-mindedness, and brought to us by the same people who love to put those labels on others.

 

The idea that 'racist speech' is somehow not protected as free speech should give people chills, but instead the morons just cheer the continued erosion of personal liberty.

+1

 

Hate speech/Hate Crimes are both concepts that should make every American's blood boil.

[TakeYouToTasker]

 

1. I don't think a majority of our electorate has the foggiest idea what our fiscal situation is.

 

2. When you look at the demographic breakdown of the election it's clear a substantial % based their votes on skin tone and genitalia.

I'll echo this sentiment.

 

It's wonderful to want fanciful things, full of wonder and mystery. It's entirely another thing to enact economic policy making the wonderful both viable and sustainable.

 

I am, at my core, a humanist. I hate seeing suffering, and spend real resources, both monetary and personal, to combat it; to speak nothing of my tax burden. Although, admittedly, I have become disgusted with those who presume to take rather than ask, and it has swayed me of late.

 

What I have come to realize is that Malthus was right. You cannot allow the poor to rest easy in their plight if what you truely desire for them is their own betterment and a sense of pride. Some few cannot, and never will be saved, and it is far beret to allow them to chose their own fate rather than to impose a soft slavery of perpetual institutional dependence on the many.