RE: Freaking Orwellian

RE: Freaking Orwellian (Full Version)

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

Message

GoddessManko -> RE: Freaking Orwellian (2/22/2014 6:42:45 AM)
Both me AND my conservative friends agree. You want Orwellian? Look at Congress. Tell me how on earth it makes sense for someone to serve as many as 20 terms? I thought this was a democracy, not a monarchy? And this is the most ineffective of our entire history to boot! But you know the serenity prayer? Think it applies here. No point kicking up dirt over something that is likely not to change. We'll see November 4th what the voter turnout is like. :/

DesideriScuri -> RE: Freaking Orwellian (2/22/2014 6:46:35 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: lovmuffin quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail No, we dont have a federal law dictating what we can see. And sight is different than speech. But other than that, I think you are pretty well out of the discourse. So freedom of the press doesn't count ? There are also actions that falls under free speech. http://www.uscourts.gov/educational-resources/get-involved/constitution-activities/first-amendment/free-speech.aspx

DesideriScuri -> RE: Freaking Orwellian (2/22/2014 6:48:19 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GoddessManko Both me AND my conservative friends agree. You want Orwellian? Look at Congress. Tell me how on earth it makes sense for someone to serve as many as 20 terms? I thought this was a democracy, not a monarchy? And this is the most ineffective of our entire history to boot! But you know the serenity prayer? Think it applies here. No point kicking up dirt over something that is likely not to change. We'll see November 4th what the voter turnout is like. :/ We agree on the need for term limits, but, the voters continue to vote for the same people, so it's the public doing the deed. Some might consider that the voters are "speaking" their mind.

mnottertail -> RE: Freaking Orwellian (2/22/2014 6:53:18 AM)
I dont understand your babble here, what the fuck has that got to do with what I said, are you saying something entirely new, or why quote me, cuz it has fuck all to do with anything. Amendment I Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. Now, what is abridgement of the press? Fuckin SCOTUS has many rulings regarding that. The FCC was created in 1934.........their policies are in question on this issue why? some nutsacker nothing from WSJ howls at the moon, and throws out a sinister conspiratorial fear bone to the ever paranoid nutsackers, saying this is what they are really trying to do, not what they are doing, dont believe that shit just because you see it with your own eyes.... http://www.fcc.gov/what-we-do They are doing a study. Put that in your newspaper, if you have need of news.

Yachtie -> RE: Freaking Orwellian (2/22/2014 7:23:00 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail And sight is different than speech. A picture is worth a thousand words. [;)] I guess newspapers don't show pictures and television does not involve speech. Government should intrude with both feet in monopolistic marketplaces. And so this inquiry pressures dipshits in that it makes them feel guilty? Doubt you can make a nutsacker feel guilty, they possess no morals. I don't understand your babble there. Must be some nutsackering involved somewhere. Coherency is not your strong suit.

TheHeretic -> RE: Freaking Orwellian (2/22/2014 7:31:07 AM)
I suspect the nutsacking nutsackers are just twisting the nuts into a sack to avoid discussing the actual topic, Yachtie. They are nutsackers like that. I quit letting it clutter my screen.

Owner59 -> RE: Freaking Orwellian (2/22/2014 7:36:46 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: GoddessManko Both me AND my conservative friends agree. You want Orwellian? Look at Congress. Tell me how on earth it makes sense for someone to serve as many as 20 terms? I thought this was a democracy, not a monarchy? And this is the most ineffective of our entire history to boot! But you know the serenity prayer? Think it applies here. No point kicking up dirt over something that is likely not to change. We'll see November 4th what the voter turnout is like. :/ We agree on the need for term limits, but, the voters continue to vote for the same people, so it's the public doing the deed. Some might consider that the voters are "speaking" their mind. We have term limits.....they`re called elections.....

souler -> RE: Freaking Orwellian (2/22/2014 7:37:50 AM)
Normally I don't jump into the forums here but a couple of things: 1. Instituting the Fairness Doctrine would be amazing. Why? Not just conservative and Liberal talking, but other ideologies that are there can be represented. For instance, the NSA/PRISM scandal would actually have to show both sides and avoid sugar coating it for either side. 2. If you don't think the government doesn't control free speech as of right now with these mega information/communication companies, think again. On one hand, those companies lobby for some of the most extremely hurtful things for citizens, (SOPA, PIPA, hyper extensions to Copyright). On the other hand, if they ever wanted to say F YOU GOVERMENT, they can't because they would abdicate their power, and now the government could harm them. 3. The FCC's powers, for the most part, are very limited. They can't even attempt to label ISPs as common carriers because of people freaking out about too much government. Meanwhile ISPs like Comcast will now be able to extort content and even censor those that don't do what they ask of. If you want to strip a power from them, strip censorship. However, if you want true power back to citizens, you probably want the FCC to gain more power.

Owner59 -> RE: Freaking Orwellian (2/22/2014 7:41:07 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic I suspect the nutsacking nutsackers are just twisting the nuts into a sack to avoid discussing the actual topic, Yachtie. They are nutsackers like that. I quit letting it clutter my screen. Bwah! Isn`t up to you to provide a subject that inspires debate and discussion....? "you people will discuss the OP they way I want or I`ll report you to the thought police"......

DesideriScuri -> RE: Freaking Orwellian (2/22/2014 7:43:52 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Owner59 quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: GoddessManko Both me AND my conservative friends agree. You want Orwellian? Look at Congress. Tell me how on earth it makes sense for someone to serve as many as 20 terms? I thought this was a democracy, not a monarchy? And this is the most ineffective of our entire history to boot! But you know the serenity prayer? Think it applies here. No point kicking up dirt over something that is likely not to change. We'll see November 4th what the voter turnout is like. :/ We agree on the need for term limits, but, the voters continue to vote for the same people, so it's the public doing the deed. Some might consider that the voters are "speaking" their mind. We have term limits.....they`re called elections..... The limit of the length of a term and the limit on the number of terms one can serve are much different. I'm sure you knew that and just decided to attempt to derail. Fail.

TheHeretic -> RE: Freaking Orwellian (2/22/2014 7:51:31 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: souler Normally I don't jump into the forums here but a couple of things: 1. Instituting the Fairness Doctrine would be amazing. Why? Not just conservative and Liberal talking, but other ideologies that are there can be represented. For instance, the NSA/PRISM scandal would actually have to show both sides and avoid sugar coating it for either side. Welcome to the conversation. [:)] You say instituting the Fairness Doctrine would be "amazing." That suggests to me that you think it is some bold new initiative, rather than a failed practice that stifled speech for decades.

GoddessManko -> RE: Freaking Orwellian (2/22/2014 7:52:50 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Owner59 quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: GoddessManko Both me AND my conservative friends agree. You want Orwellian? Look at Congress. Tell me how on earth it makes sense for someone to serve as many as 20 terms? I thought this was a democracy, not a monarchy? And this is the most ineffective of our entire history to boot! But you know the serenity prayer? Think it applies here. No point kicking up dirt over something that is likely not to change. We'll see November 4th what the voter turnout is like. :/ We agree on the need for term limits, but, the voters continue to vote for the same people, so it's the public doing the deed. Some might consider that the voters are "speaking" their mind. We have term limits.....they`re called elections..... That's fine, but when you have Congressional leaders in Washington for DECADES, don't you think these people have NO fear at all of job security? Why do you think we have been seeing the crazy antics we have in Washington? At least a president does have term limits. However Congress has been giving themselves raises every single year (and heaven forbid they legislate term limits on THEMSELVES...and this is BOTH parties) until this president while wages have stagnated for most Americans over the past 30 years. However I digress. Isn't that a bigger issue than partisanship? Which they pander to in order to use divisive tactics among voters while NOTHING is really getting done except slashing scientific and technology program funding which would help us in the long term across the board. And Republicans themselves are not even getting any real representation from their party when the minority teabaggers have pretty much hijacked all of their decision making. the whole thing is a sordid mess.

Owner59 -> RE: Freaking Orwellian (2/22/2014 8:12:15 AM)
I like my congress person,if I and my mates want to extend her stay....we`re should be allowed to...it is a democracy after all... Limiting money would be the way to even the playing fields...... Or publically financed elections......where there`s no quid pro quo. Welcom GodessMako.....we always welcome serious posters.

Yachtie -> RE: Freaking Orwellian (2/22/2014 8:13:30 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GoddessManko quote: ORIGINAL: Owner59 We have term limits.....they`re called elections..... That's fine, but when you have Congressional leaders in Washington for DECADES, the whole thing is a sordid mess. I have to agree with Owner here. Those decades long leaders were so because of voters, not their own volition. Any problem with such incumbent longevity is voter attributable. Doesn't speak well of the electoarte, does it.

souler -> RE: Freaking Orwellian (2/22/2014 8:22:27 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic quote: ORIGINAL: souler Normally I don't jump into the forums here but a couple of things: 1. Instituting the Fairness Doctrine would be amazing. Why? Not just conservative and Liberal talking, but other ideologies that are there can be represented. For instance, the NSA/PRISM scandal would actually have to show both sides and avoid sugar coating it for either side. Welcome to the conversation. [:)] You say instituting the Fairness Doctrine would be "amazing." That suggests to me that you think it is some bold new initiative, rather than a failed practice that stifled speech for decades. But that's just it. In this day and age, for the internet, it's not only hard to stifle speech, it's almost impossible (except for certain times). While I don't think it would fix everything that's wrong, it would at least be able to give viewers other thoughts.

Yachtie -> RE: Freaking Orwellian (2/22/2014 8:25:44 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GoddessManko However Congress has been giving themselves raises every single year (and heaven forbid they legislate term limits on THEMSELVES...and this is BOTH parties) until this president while wages have stagnated for most Americans over the past 30 years. However I digress. Isn't that a bigger issue than partisanship? Which they pander to in order to use divisive tactics among voters while NOTHING is really getting done except slashing scientific and technology program funding which would help us in the long term across the board. And Republicans themselves are not even getting any real representation from their party when the minority teabaggers have pretty much hijacked all of their decision making. the whole thing is a sordid mess. You do broadly thrash about. All that can be reduced to one statement which was made a long time ago. *"When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic. "* - Franklin Whether it be the individual for himself or groups for their own purposes, once one can use Congress Critters largess for such, well, that's when you, as a voter, have been bought and paid for.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Freaking Orwellian (2/22/2014 8:33:21 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: souler quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic quote: ORIGINAL: souler Normally I don't jump into the forums here but a couple of things: 1. Instituting the Fairness Doctrine would be amazing. Why? Not just conservative and Liberal talking, but other ideologies that are there can be represented. For instance, the NSA/PRISM scandal would actually have to show both sides and avoid sugar coating it for either side. Welcome to the conversation. [:)] You say instituting the Fairness Doctrine would be "amazing." That suggests to me that you think it is some bold new initiative, rather than a failed practice that stifled speech for decades. But that's just it. In this day and age, for the internet, it's not only hard to stifle speech, it's almost impossible (except for certain times). While I don't think it would fix everything that's wrong, it would at least be able to give viewers other thoughts. Yes, those Chinese enjoy full viewing privileges to the internet... [8\|]

mnottertail -> RE: Freaking Orwellian (2/22/2014 8:46:45 AM)
I doubt the Chinese have the same first amendement language in their constitution that we do.

souler -> RE: Freaking Orwellian (2/22/2014 8:50:40 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: souler quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic quote: ORIGINAL: souler Normally I don't jump into the forums here but a couple of things: 1. Instituting the Fairness Doctrine would be amazing. Why? Not just conservative and Liberal talking, but other ideologies that are there can be represented. For instance, the NSA/PRISM scandal would actually have to show both sides and avoid sugar coating it for either side. Welcome to the conversation. [:)] You say instituting the Fairness Doctrine would be "amazing." That suggests to me that you think it is some bold new initiative, rather than a failed practice that stifled speech for decades. But that's just it. In this day and age, for the internet, it's not only hard to stifle speech, it's almost impossible (except for certain times). While I don't think it would fix everything that's wrong, it would at least be able to give viewers other thoughts. Yes, those Chinese enjoy full viewing privileges to the internet... [8\|] Compared to other years, they sorta do. Yes the firewall is significant but it doesn't mean that others aren't finding ways to get around it (like Tor). That's why I said it's almost hard. You can do things like redirecting, throttling, etc. but as long as people build proxy sites, develop ways to around it, etc. you're going to always have a hard time censoring speech.

Owner59 -> RE: Freaking Orwellian (2/22/2014 8:50:54 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Yachtie quote: ORIGINAL: GoddessManko quote: ORIGINAL: Owner59 We have term limits.....they`re called elections..... That's fine, but when you have Congressional leaders in Washington for DECADES, the whole thing is a sordid mess. I have to agree with Owner here. Those decades long leaders were so because of voters, not their own volition. Any problem with such incumbent longevity is voter attributable. Doesn't speak well of the electoarte, does it. Well,as of today....the gop congress, nationally, has single digit ratings......but in their individual districts ,gop members have 80-90 % positive ratings....It`s democracy with all it`s warts. Senators shake out a little less divided but that`s because it`s a state-wide sample and not just from Butt-fuck Co.....where shit gets concentrated.You can`t gerrymander a whole state. National elections dissolve the partisan concentrations even more... But as of today,you can have admitted to buying whores for years and still get elected....if your voters want that. IMHO,the Founders wanted it like this...And did NOT want top down control of who stays in elected office. Of course there were exceptions to this w/ certain positions being life-time appointments....thus limiting that person`s vulnerability to political manipulation. But those folks are initially appointed by who we elect thus maintaining our status as a republic . Speaking of Orwellian.... Why does rightist media make everything the President does out to be a tyrannical crisis/emergency? Like with the EOs or the ACA? That was one aspect of 1984 that`s bothersome today.....this "emergency/screaming-meme" mode that`s always being pushed. IMHO...that`s what`s driving all the assassination talk and violent overthrow narratives, coming from consumers of rightist media..... It`s because the right has reported the weirdest most mentally retarded fairy-tales as real news.....that grown men are taking the Orwellian "the enemy`s at the gates" propaganda/fear-mongering, as reality.

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875