RE: Koch Funded Anti-Obamacare Ads

RE: Koch Funded Anti-Obamacare Ads (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

thompsonx -> RE: Koch Funded Anti-Obamacare Ads (9/23/2013 7:07:05 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 The notion private companies can bring out anti government ads creeps me out....... Whatever you wish to call it, it isnt deomocracy. Funny thing, Polite. There are words to describe a society where what information and alternate viewpoints can be distrubuted to the people is restricted and controlled. None of those words are "democracy" either (or deomocracy for that matter) What are the words to describe a society where the voice of the rich drowns out the voice of the not rich...is that what one calls democracy? Financial Oligarchy? Plutocracy? Corporatism? But not democracy. When one can financially silence the opposition what is that called? Is that called free speech?

DesideriScuri -> RE: Koch Funded Anti-Obamacare Ads (9/23/2013 7:14:33 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 The notion private companies can bring out anti government ads creeps me out....... Whatever you wish to call it, it isnt deomocracy. Funny thing, Polite. There are words to describe a society where what information and alternate viewpoints can be distrubuted to the people is restricted and controlled. None of those words are "democracy" either (or deomocracy for that matter) What are the words to describe a society where the voice of the rich drowns out the voice of the not rich...is that what one calls democracy? Financial Oligarchy? Plutocracy? Corporatism? But not democracy. When one can financially silence the opposition what is that called? Is that called free speech? That depends on who is doing the silencing and who is defining "free speech."

thompsonx -> RE: Koch Funded Anti-Obamacare Ads (9/23/2013 8:06:57 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 The notion private companies can bring out anti government ads creeps me out....... Whatever you wish to call it, it isnt deomocracy. Funny thing, Polite. There are words to describe a society where what information and alternate viewpoints can be distrubuted to the people is restricted and controlled. None of those words are "democracy" either (or deomocracy for that matter) What are the words to describe a society where the voice of the rich drowns out the voice of the not rich...is that what one calls democracy? Financial Oligarchy? Plutocracy? Corporatism? But not democracy. When one can financially silence the opposition what is that called? Is that called free speech? That depends on who is doing the silencing and who is defining "free speech." [8\|]

DesideriScuri -> RE: Koch Funded Anti-Obamacare Ads (9/23/2013 8:20:06 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 The notion private companies can bring out anti government ads creeps me out....... Whatever you wish to call it, it isnt deomocracy. Funny thing, Polite. There are words to describe a society where what information and alternate viewpoints can be distrubuted to the people is restricted and controlled. None of those words are "democracy" either (or deomocracy for that matter) What are the words to describe a society where the voice of the rich drowns out the voice of the not rich...is that what one calls democracy? Financial Oligarchy? Plutocracy? Corporatism? But not democracy. When one can financially silence the opposition what is that called? Is that called free speech? That depends on who is doing the silencing and who is defining "free speech." [8\|] Perhaps it's just me, but, are you rolling your eyes in agreement, or in disagreement? Either way, if you'd be so kind as to expound, it would be nice.

thompsonx -> RE: Koch Funded Anti-Obamacare Ads (9/23/2013 8:29:37 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 The notion private companies can bring out anti government ads creeps me out....... Whatever you wish to call it, it isnt deomocracy. Funny thing, Polite. There are words to describe a society where what information and alternate viewpoints can be distrubuted to the people is restricted and controlled. None of those words are "democracy" either (or deomocracy for that matter) What are the words to describe a society where the voice of the rich drowns out the voice of the not rich...is that what one calls democracy? Financial Oligarchy? Plutocracy? Corporatism? But not democracy. When one can financially silence the opposition what is that called? Is that called free speech? That depends on who is doing the silencing and who is defining "free speech." [8\|] Perhaps it's just me, but, are you rolling your eyes in agreement, or in disagreement? Either way, if you'd be so kind as to expound, it would be nice. It means that I think the post is disingenuous bullshit. If you wish to dance find someone who enjoys that.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Koch Funded Anti-Obamacare Ads (9/23/2013 9:27:03 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 The notion private companies can bring out anti government ads creeps me out....... Whatever you wish to call it, it isnt deomocracy. Funny thing, Polite. There are words to describe a society where what information and alternate viewpoints can be distrubuted to the people is restricted and controlled. None of those words are "democracy" either (or deomocracy for that matter) What are the words to describe a society where the voice of the rich drowns out the voice of the not rich...is that what one calls democracy? Financial Oligarchy? Plutocracy? Corporatism? But not democracy. When one can financially silence the opposition what is that called? Is that called free speech? That depends on who is doing the silencing and who is defining "free speech." [8\|] Perhaps it's just me, but, are you rolling your eyes in agreement, or in disagreement? Either way, if you'd be so kind as to expound, it would be nice. It means that I think the post is disingenuous bullshit. If you wish to dance find someone who enjoys that. Really? So, government can decide something is not "free speech" (doing the silencing), and the public screaming about it being free speech ("defining free speech)? We all want "free speech," but we don't get it completely. The oft-used "yelling fire in a theater" not being free, is a perfect example.

DomKen -> RE: Koch Funded Anti-Obamacare Ads (9/23/2013 10:14:55 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux No it would be that before Citizen's United there were unjust restrictions on free speech. Now there are fewer. The government has no business deciding who has free speech and who does not. Kind of defeats the purpose of free speech, isn't it? Can something the government permits or takes away really be described as free? Free speech is for people. Not for legal fictions.

thompsonx -> RE: Koch Funded Anti-Obamacare Ads (9/23/2013 10:21:06 AM)
quote: It means that I think the post is disingenuous bullshit. If you wish to dance find someone who enjoys that. quote: Really? So, government can decide something is not "free speech" (doing the silencing), and the public screaming about it being free speech ("defining free speech)? We all want "free speech," but we don't get it completely. The oft-used "yelling fire in a theater" not being free, is a perfect example. Is there a point to this rambling bullshit?

Phydeaux -> RE: Koch Funded Anti-Obamacare Ads (9/23/2013 10:49:23 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux No it would be that before Citizen's United there were unjust restrictions on free speech. Now there are fewer. The government has no business deciding who has free speech and who does not. Kind of defeats the purpose of free speech, isn't it? Can something the government permits or takes away really be described as free? Free speech is for people. Not for legal fictions. Apparently the Supreme Court doesn't hold that opinion. And hence neither does the rest of the legal system.

Phydeaux -> RE: Koch Funded Anti-Obamacare Ads (9/23/2013 10:52:33 AM)
Why is it do you suppose that the foul mouthed are on the left? I ascribe it to the emperors new clothes. If you have no facts, pound the table. Pound the source. Impeach the author.

mnottertail -> RE: Koch Funded Anti-Obamacare Ads (9/23/2013 10:53:44 AM)
Oh, I dont know the rightwing shiteaters are a pretty foulmouthed lot, I think it gets lost because they post so much stupid shit though, and that takes center stage.

thompsonx -> RE: Koch Funded Anti-Obamacare Ads (9/23/2013 10:59:45 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux Why is it do you suppose that the foul mouthed are on the left? Perhaps you should ask someone on the fucking left? quote: I ascribe it to the emperors new clothes. If you have no facts, pound the table. Pound the source. Impeach the author. If the author is full of shit I point it out. If the source is full of shit I point it out. If the poster has no facts I point it out. If that fucking bothers anyone...tough shit.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Koch Funded Anti-Obamacare Ads (9/23/2013 12:08:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux Why is it do you suppose that the foul mouthed are on the left? Perhaps you should ask someone on the fucking left? quote: I ascribe it to the emperors new clothes. If you have no facts, pound the table. Pound the source. Impeach the author. If the author is full of shit I point it out. If the source is full of shit I point it out. If the poster has no facts I point it out. If that fucking bothers anyone...tough shit. Even a blind squirrel finds a nut occasionally. Posters on the left like to claim that the GOP is against anything Obama is for, but anything Rush or Beck says is completely discredited by those on the left simply because Beck or Rush said it. You (general) don't like things that come from Wing Nut Daily... er, wnd.com, but the typical way of not discussing it is to simply claim it's horseshit simply because it came from wnd.com. The atypical response for those on the left is to address the actual argument and show where it fails. It's all about the messenger and not the message.

DomKen -> RE: Koch Funded Anti-Obamacare Ads (9/23/2013 12:18:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux Why is it do you suppose that the foul mouthed are on the left? I ascribe it to the emperors new clothes. If you have no facts, pound the table. Pound the source. Impeach the author. Shall I repost just a few of the insults and cursing you've posted?

Phydeaux -> RE: Koch Funded Anti-Obamacare Ads (9/23/2013 4:06:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux Why is it do you suppose that the foul mouthed are on the left? I ascribe it to the emperors new clothes. If you have no facts, pound the table. Pound the source. Impeach the author. Shall I repost just a few of the insults and cursing you've posted? Being a fine upstanding member of the community I would suggest one review the TOS, and then make one's own decision.

VideoAdminRho -> RE: Koch Funded Anti-Obamacare Ads (9/25/2013 8:59:50 AM)
This thread is now unlocked.

thompsonx -> RE: Koch Funded Anti-Obamacare Ads (9/25/2013 9:33:28 AM)
The atypical response for those on the left is to address the actual argument and show where it fails. It's all about the messenger and not the message. If the messenger has a track record of being a motherfucking liar how much credence should be given to those who cite the motherfucking liar as a valid source?

DesideriScuri -> RE: Koch Funded Anti-Obamacare Ads (9/25/2013 9:40:27 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx The atypical response for those on the left is to address the actual argument and show where it fails. It's all about the messenger and not the message. If the messenger has a track record of being a motherfucking liar how much credence should be given to those who cite the motherfucking liar as a valid source? And, the beat goes on...

thompsonx -> RE: Koch Funded Anti-Obamacare Ads (9/25/2013 10:06:36 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx The atypical response for those on the left is to address the actual argument and show where it fails. It's all about the messenger and not the message. If the messenger has a track record of being a motherfucking liar how much credence should be given to those who cite the motherfucking liar as a valid source? And, the beat goes on... Rather than actually address the statement we get what we get. Why is it so difficult to answer a simple mother fucking question? Why? Because to do so might engender actual discussion and that is not what is being sought is it...thus the simple minded "the beat goes one" mantra of how no one will discuss anything....bullshit answer the mother fucking question and lets discuss it. Why the fuck should anyone give any creedene to someone who has a track record of lying? Why should any one give any creedence to someone who would use a source that has a track record of lying?

DesideriScuri -> RE: Koch Funded Anti-Obamacare Ads (9/25/2013 10:28:42 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx The atypical response for those on the left is to address the actual argument and show where it fails. It's all about the messenger and not the message. If the messenger has a track record of being a motherfucking liar how much credence should be given to those who cite the motherfucking liar as a valid source? And, the beat goes on... Rather than actually address the statement we get what we get. Why is it so difficult to answer a simple mother fucking question? Why? Because to do so might engender actual discussion and that is not what is being sought is it...thus the simple minded "the beat goes one" mantra of how no one will discuss anything....bullshit answer the mother fucking question and lets discuss it. Why the fuck should anyone give any creedene to someone who has a track record of lying? Why should any one give any creedence to someone who would use a source that has a track record of lying? Well, if you must know, not everything a liar says is always going to be a lie. So, when you do nothing but discredit the source, you aren't addressing the message. While the message could very well be a lie, you don't stop the message at all. Addressing a message only by discrediting the messenger is an easy attempt to end a discussion.

Page: << < prev 2 3 [4] 5 6 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875