2 of 4
2
Infographics - the Truthy Project… diffusion network - Indiana University
Posted: 13 October 2010 04:43 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 16 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5975
Joined  2009-02-26
Rocinante - 13 October 2010 04:07 PM
Write4U - 13 October 2010 03:51 PM

Yes, but you cannot ethically lie about facts. That is not “protected speech”.

If that were the case, then Obama would be in prison.  Heck, probably every politician out there would be in prison!  Hmmmm, perhaps it’s not a bad idea after all!  LOL

Lying is bad.  Using the police power of the state to force citizens to tell the truth is worse.  Because eventually the state will start determining what “truth” is, not objective reality. 

Show me in the First Amendment where it says, “Lying is not protected speech.”

If a lie costs a person his job or affects his ability to earn an income, you bet there are laws against that. Law suits against false advertising, slander, defamation of character, are common and monetary damages often awarded.

 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 13 October 2010 04:47 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 17 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1064
Joined  2007-06-20

I agree.  Thee should be slander and libel laws.  But to say that “sedition” should be applied when saying things about the President is way too extreme.

 Signature 

There are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by the gradual and silent encroachment of those in power, than by violent and sudden usurpation.

—James Madison

Profile
 
 
Posted: 13 October 2010 05:05 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 18 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5975
Joined  2009-02-26
Rocinante - 13 October 2010 04:47 PM

I agree.  Thee should be slander and libel laws.  But to say that “sedition” should be applied when saying things about the President is way too extreme.

It depends on what is being said and in what context. Attackers of the president are not immune from the law. That is why we have the word “sedition” in addition to “treason” to indicate the difference between “destroying the presidency” and “giving aid and comfort to the enemy”.
But I will stipulate that the bar for “sedition” must be set very high (or very low,  shock)

[ Edited: 13 October 2010 06:54 PM by Write4U ]
 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 14 October 2010 08:40 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 19 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1064
Joined  2007-06-20

I just fear that it would eventually become a crime to criticize the President.  I’d rather err on the side of offending the President than on the side stifling free, open and even contentious debate.

What if I point out that by the actual definition of fascism, Obama is clearly and undeniably a fascist?  Should I get in trouble for saying that?  I don’t think so.  But I fear your proposal would eventually lead to people being fined (or worse) by the state for making truthful statements just because some politicians didn’t like what was being said.

 Signature 

There are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by the gradual and silent encroachment of those in power, than by violent and sudden usurpation.

—James Madison

Profile
 
 
Posted: 14 October 2010 10:28 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 20 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3789
Joined  2010-08-15

What an interesting example of how the smear works, if this were right wing radio, your paragraph would end:

Rocinante - 14 October 2010 08:40 AM

What if I point out that by the actual definition of fascism, Obama is clearly and undeniably a fascist?  Should I get in trouble for saying that?  I don’t think so.  But I fear your proposal would eventually lead to people being fined (or worse) by the state for making truthful statements just because some politicians didn’t like what was being said… 

...                      ...thus I have the right to call Obama fascist as I’ve clearly shone him to be.

 Signature 

How many times do lies need to be exposed
before we have permission to trash them?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 14 October 2010 12:42 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 21 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5975
Joined  2009-02-26
citizenschallenge.pm - 14 October 2010 10:28 AM

What an interesting example of how the smear works, if this were right wing radio, your paragraph would end:

Rocinante - 14 October 2010 08:40 AM

What if I point out that by the actual definition of fascism, Obama is clearly and undeniably a fascist?  Should I get in trouble for saying that?  I don’t think so.  But I fear your proposal would eventually lead to people being fined (or worse) by the state for making truthful statements just because some politicians didn’t like what was being said… 

...                      ...thus I have the right to call Obama fascist as I’ve clearly shone him to be.

Especially when it is known (to most, but not some) that Obama is clearly NOT a fascist.

From Wikipedia,

This article is about the legal term. For other uses, see Sedition (disambiguation).

In law, sedition is overt conduct, such as speech and organization, that is deemed by the legal authority to tend toward insurrection against the established order. Sedition often includes subversion of a constitution and incitement of discontent (or resistance) to lawful authority. Sedition may include any commotion, though not aimed at direct and open violence against the laws. Seditious words in writing are seditious libel. A seditionist is one who engages in or promotes the interests of sedition.

Thus if someone who hates “fascists” takes up a gun and and displays a sign “Obama is a fascist, I have proof”, and organizes armed resistance to the fascist take over of our freedoms, he could not be charged with sedition?
All these things are currently done by various factions within the “Tea Party”. This is dangerous stuff!!

 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 14 October 2010 01:39 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 22 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1064
Joined  2007-06-20

This is exactly my point.  How can it be a smear when it is true?  By any honest definition combined with Obama’s actions, he is a fascist.  Keep in mind that the definition of fascism is not, “Any person winning a debate with a liberal.  wink  I’m talking about the real definition of fascism.

    fas·cism  ˈ\fa-ˌshi-zəm\
    -noun

    1. Any system of government in which property is privately owned but all industry and labor are regulated by a
    strong national government.

Obama’s lead in the government take-over of areas of health care, some banks and car companies is the dictionary definition of fascism.  Likewise with his shakedown of BP where he forced a private company to cough up $20 billion for a slush fund to be run by who?  Oh yes, Obama’s czars!   

The Charlotte Observer stated Obama wants, “...new powers to seize troubled companies such as AIG – and take ownership of their toxic assets…”  Study history my friend to see what types of governments seize private companies.  Here’s a hint, it starts with an “F” and ends in “ascist.”

As for consolation of power into the hands of a few that goes along with fascism, even Democrat Senator Robert Byrd, said Obama was pushing constitutional limits with Obama’s appointments of czar after czar for health care, energy, climate, urban issues, etc. instead of allowing the legislative branch to deal with such issues. 

The Cybersecurity Act of 2009 gives Obama the ability to “declare a cybersecurity emergency” and shut down the Internet in any “critical” information network.”  The CSA does not define a critical information network or a cybersecurity emergency.  That definition would be left to Obama alone.   

It’s not that I believe Obama is a fascist.  The objective facts clearly show that he is a fascist.  Just because you don’t like the facts doesn’t mean I can’t point them out.  And my pointing them out is not sedition and it is clearly protected by the First Amendment. 

And speaking of the First Amendment and fascism, check out this quote:

“It should be clear by now that my focus here is not freedom of speech or the press.  This freedom is all too often an exaggeration. At the very least, blind references to freedom of speech or the press serve as a distraction from the critical examination of other communications policies.  [T]he purpose of free speech is warped to protect global corporations and block rules that would promote democratic governance.” [Emphasis added.]

Want to know who said that?  Obama’s Chief Diversity Officer at the FCC, Mark Lloyd. 

Put it all together and it is fascism.  And any claim otherwise will only cause the cognitive dissonance of Obama apologists to grow to even more uncomfortable levels than they are currently at.

 Signature 

There are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by the gradual and silent encroachment of those in power, than by violent and sudden usurpation.

—James Madison

Profile
 
 
Posted: 14 October 2010 01:49 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 23 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1064
Joined  2007-06-20
Write4U - 14 October 2010 12:42 PM

Thus if someone…takes up a gun and…organizes armed resistance…[to the President]...

All these things are currently done by various factions within the “Tea Party”.

Please provide an example of the Tea Party movement taking up arms in an organized manner where they physically threatened the President of the United States.  I seemed to have missed where the Secret Service arrested these people. 

Funny how you get to libel a group you don’t like, but you would not allow the same thing to those you libel.  Some are more free than others, huh?

 Signature 

There are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by the gradual and silent encroachment of those in power, than by violent and sudden usurpation.

—James Madison

Profile
 
 
Posted: 14 October 2010 03:38 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 24 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5975
Joined  2009-02-26
Rocinante - 14 October 2010 01:49 PM
Write4U - 14 October 2010 12:42 PM

Thus if someone…takes up a gun and…organizes armed resistance…[to the President]...

All these things are currently done by various factions within the “Tea Party”.

Please provide an example of the Tea Party movement taking up arms in an organized manner where they physically threatened the President of the United States.  I seemed to have missed where the Secret Service arrested these people. 

Funny how you get to libel a group you don’t like, but you would not allow the same thing to those you libel.  Some are more free than others, huh?

I said “a faction” of the Tea Party. Check out UTube for examples. And there were no arrests, because of the government’s recognition that free speech is a precious freedom, which should be respected by the authorities, but also places an obligation on the population to use this freedom with a certain restraint, called civility.
In most other countries, speech as used by “some” protesters would indeed have resulted in arrest.

 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 14 October 2010 04:07 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 25 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5975
Joined  2009-02-26
Rocinante - 14 October 2010 01:39 PM

This is exactly my point.  How can it be a smear when it is true?  By any honest definition combined with Obama’s actions, he is a fascist.  Keep in mind that the definition of fascism is not, “Any person winning a debate with a liberal.  wink  I’m talking about the real definition of fascism.

    fas·cism  ˈ\fa-ˌshi-zəm\
    -noun

    1. Any system of government in which property is privately owned but all industry and labor are regulated by a
    strong national government.

Obama’s lead in the government take-over of areas of health care, some banks and car companies is the dictionary definition of fascism.  Likewise with his shakedown of BP where he forced a private company to cough up $20 billion for a slush fund to be run by who?  Oh yes, Obama’s czars!   

The Charlotte Observer stated Obama wants, “...new powers to seize troubled companies such as AIG – and take ownership of their toxic assets…”  Study history my friend to see what types of governments seize private companies.  Here’s a hint, it starts with an “F” and ends in “ascist.”

As for consolation of power into the hands of a few that goes along with fascism, even Democrat Senator Robert Byrd, said Obama was pushing constitutional limits with Obama’s appointments of czar after czar for health care, energy, climate, urban issues, etc. instead of allowing the legislative branch to deal with such issues.

Corrective government action to save a nation from total financial collapse, is different than a government which is founded on fascist principles. When too much freedom and the abuse thereof by corporations leads to national economic failure, which would affect the greater population, it is incumbent upon the government to take corrective action. 

The Cybersecurity Act of 2009 gives Obama the ability to “declare a cybersecurity emergency” and shut down the Internet in any “critical” information network.”  The CSA does not define a critical information network or a cybersecurity emergency.  That definition would be left to Obama alone.   

It’s not that I believe Obama is a fascist.  The objective facts clearly show that he is a fascist.  Just because you don’t like the facts doesn’t mean I can’t point them out.  And my pointing them out is not sedition and it is clearly protected by the First Amendment.

Even after Obama explained that “in principle” he was opposed to what government was forced to do to to prevent total collapse. 

And speaking of the First Amendment and fascism, check out this quote:

“It should be clear by now that my focus here is not freedom of speech or the press.  This freedom is all too often an exaggeration. At the very least, blind references to freedom of speech or the press serve as a distraction from the critical examination of other communications policies.  [T]he purpose of free speech is warped to protect global corporations and block rules that would promote democratic governance.” [Emphasis added.]
Want to know who said that?  Obama’s Chief Diversity Officer at the FCC, Mark Lloyd.

ah, yes, an ambiguity, taken as proof of a fascist take over. How about this: “The purpose of free speech (is) has been warped to protect global corporations and block rules that would promote democratic governance.”

Put it all together and it is fascism.  And any claim otherwise will only cause the cognitive dissonance of Obama apologists to grow to even more uncomfortable levels than they are currently at.

Put it all together and it is a desperate (perhaps sometimes ill-advised) attempt by a popularly elected president to save his nation and its people from utter ruin.

Moreover, no one ever cites the fact that a large portion of this “financial bail out” has already been returned to the government, some with interest, and that control or ownership by the government has been returned to several corporations. Temporary governmental interference, when necessecary, can not logically be construed as an inevitable path to fascism, socialism, communism, or naziism. The is always those little documents named The Constitution and The Bill of Rights. The only people I see advocating restrictive amendments to the Constitution are the “far right theist activists”, and that for their own “provable” motives to subvert our freedoms “in the name of God”.

[ Edited: 14 October 2010 04:24 PM by Write4U ]
 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 14 October 2010 04:56 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 26 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1064
Joined  2007-06-20
Write4U - 14 October 2010 03:38 PM

And there were no arrests, because of the government’s recognition that free speech is a precious freedom, which should be respected by the authorities, but also places an obligation on the population to use this freedom with a certain restraint, called civility.

There were no arrests because nothing even close to what you claimed happened.

 Signature 

There are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by the gradual and silent encroachment of those in power, than by violent and sudden usurpation.

—James Madison

Profile
 
 
Posted: 14 October 2010 05:15 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 27 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1064
Joined  2007-06-20
Write4U - 14 October 2010 04:07 PM

Corrective government action to save a nation from total financial collapse, is different than a government which is founded on fascist principles.

Logical Fallacy on your part: Special Pleading. 

Write4U - 14 October 2010 04:07 PM

When too much freedom and the abuse thereof by corporations leads to national economic failure, which would affect the greater population, it is incumbent upon the government to take corrective action.

A typical fascist thing to talk about “too much freedom.”  Another fascist hallmark is the claim that the collective (you used the term “greater population) is more important than the individual.  You also resorted to Special Pleading again.

Write4U - 14 October 2010 04:07 PM

Even after Obama explained that “in principle” he was opposed to what government was forced to do to to prevent total collapse.

Again, Special Pleading on your part.  The fact remains that Obama did sign the law.  And what “total collapse?”  It was never even close.  It’s all based on future hypotheticals. 

Hey, I guess Bush can get off the hook from the loony left by saying he opposed the invasion of Iraq, but still had to do it.  grin  Why would that be any different? 

Write4U - 14 October 2010 04:07 PM

ah, yes, an ambiguity, taken as proof of a fascist take over. How about this: “The purpose of free speech (is) has been warped to protect global corporations and block rules that would promote democratic governance.”

What ambiguity?  The man said he had no desire to protect freedom of speech or press.  Had a Republican President appointed a person who said the exact same thing, you’d be screaming bloody murder.  What’s it like to have absolutely no principals? 

Write4U - 14 October 2010 04:07 PM

Put it all together and it is a desperate (perhaps sometimes ill-advised) attempt by a popularly elected president to save his nation and its people from utter ruin.

Another hallmark of fascism is to constantly claim some crisis* or another requires the government to take more and more power.  And you are buying into it hook, line and sinker. 

*Obama’s Rahm Emanuel put it best when he said, “Never let a serious crisis go to waste.”  My friends and I even came up with a drinking game when Obama was campaigning.  You had to take a drink every time he said the word, “crisis.”  But we decided not to play it because anyone would be dead of alcohol poisoning within 3 minutes of an Obama speech! 

Write4U - 14 October 2010 04:07 PM

Moreover, no one ever cites the fact that a large portion of this “financial bail out” has already been returned to the government, some with interest, and that control or ownership by the government has been returned to several corporations. Temporary governmental interference, when necessecary, can not logically be construed as an inevitable path to fascism…

More Special Pleading on your part.  And the governments seizing of health care?  When can I choose to opt out of that?  Whoops, I forgot, progressive liberal types are clearly anti-choice. 

Despite all your special pleading and desperate attempts to excuse Obama from all his unconstitutional misadventures, you have not once shown where it is not fascism.  That’s because you can’t.  That’s because it is fascism.  You are just trying to appease that uncomfortable cognitive dissonance eating away at you.  If you want to feel better, face the fact that Obama is a filthy fascist who doesn’t care one bit about individual liberty.  I know it is difficult to face the fact that you were fooled by the man.  But many people were fooled by him.  Do yourself, the Constitution and the general concept of individual liberty a huge favor by accepting the harsh reality about the man.

 Signature 

There are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by the gradual and silent encroachment of those in power, than by violent and sudden usurpation.

—James Madison

Profile
 
 
Posted: 14 October 2010 05:18 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 28 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1332
Joined  2010-06-07
Write4U - 13 October 2010 05:05 PM
Rocinante - 13 October 2010 04:47 PM

I agree.  Thee should be slander and libel laws.  But to say that “sedition” should be applied when saying things about the President is way too extreme.

It depends on what is being said and in what context. Attackers of the president are not immune from the law. That is why we have the word “sedition” in addition to “treason” to indicate the difference between “destroying the presidency” and “giving aid and comfort to the enemy”.
But I will stipulate that the bar for “sedition” must be set very high (or very low,  shock)

The US has before enacted sedition laws. However they were repealed because it was viewed as anti-speech legislation and used to prosecute people for their speech.

IMO one has to fight for an individual’s right to freely express themselves. Where I think they step over the line is when they tell, encourage, advocate others to illegally act against the President or Government.

However….


I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical. Unsuccessful rebellions, indeed, generally establish the encroachments on the rights of the people which have produced them. An observation of this truth should render honest republican governors so mild in their punishment of rebellions as not to discourage them too much. It is a medicine necessary for the sound health of government.

Thomas Jefferson

Profile
 
 
Posted: 14 October 2010 05:28 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 29 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3789
Joined  2010-08-15
Rocinante - 14 October 2010 01:39 PM

Obama’s lead in the government take-over of areas of health care, some banks and car companies is the dictionary definition of fascism.  Likewise with his shakedown of BP where he forced a private company to cough up $20 billion for a slush fund to be run by who?  Oh yes, Obama’s czars!   

The Charlotte Observer stated Obama wants, “...new powers to seize troubled companies such as AIG – and take ownership of their toxic assets…”  Study history my friend to see what types of governments seize private companies.  Here’s a hint, it starts with an “F” and ends in “ascist.”

Do you actually believe all this?
You talk of history - so how do you equate Obama’s actions with what happened in Europe early last century?
Sure seems like a stretch, doesn’t it?

Rocinante - 14 October 2010 01:39 PM

And speaking of the First Amendment and fascism, check out this quote:

ah, yes, an ambiguity, taken as proof of a fascist take over. How about this: “The purpose of free speech (is) has been warped to protect global corporations and block rules that would promote democratic governance.”

Put it all together and it is fascism.  And any claim otherwise will only cause the cognitive dissonance of Obama apologists

Obama apologists? What? Can you explain this?
What about the state of the world we inhabit today?

I ask this because it seems right wingers believe we’re on an unchanged planet so that it’s fine to believe in yestercentury’s battle plans, while refusing to acknowledge the frightening changes in our planet… in our biosphere?
~ ~ ~
Since your talking fascist - what about the strangle hold corporations have achieve this election cycle thanks to our Supreme Court? Where in the fascist spectrum of things does that stand.

[ Edited: 14 October 2010 05:30 PM by citizenschallenge.pm ]
 Signature 

How many times do lies need to be exposed
before we have permission to trash them?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 14 October 2010 05:38 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 30 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1064
Joined  2007-06-20

I wonder how all the Obama apologists will try to spin his administrations defending the Defense of Marriage Act?  He lies to gays to get their vote then tosses them under the bus with the shitload of other people he has already tossed under that crowded bus.  And the Obama apologists will contort themselves every which way and bend over backward to not say a bad word about him.  I mean, I know they will resort to Special Pleading (see several examples of that above), but I can’t wait to hear their pathetic rationalizations. 

Consenting adults have the right to marry whomever they wish.  And whether it was the Bush administration or the Obama administration that is curtailing those individuals their rights, that too is part and parcel of fascism.

 Signature 

There are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by the gradual and silent encroachment of those in power, than by violent and sudden usurpation.

—James Madison

Profile
 
 
   
2 of 4
2