RE: Curiouser and Curiouser

RE: Curiouser and Curiouser (Full Version)

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

Message

TheHeretic -> RE: Curiouser and Curiouser (5/28/2014 7:43:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr quote: The first lady spoke on Friday to graduating high school students in Topeka, Kansas, and in remarks released over the weekend, Obama said students need to police family and friends because federal laws can only go so far in stopping racism. “Our laws may no longer separate us based on our skin color, but nothing in the Constitution says we have to eat together in the lunchroom, or live together in the same neighborhoods,” she said. “There’s no court case against believing in stereotypes or thinking that certain kinds of hateful jokes or comments are funny.” So ... an exhortation for us to "police" each other? Weird. I thought that was the government's job (sort of). The use of the word kind of bothers me. "Police". Does that mean we arrest people? No. That would be silly. Do we accuse them, publicly or indict them? "Name and shame"? Not only is the idea of setting neighbor upon neighbor Orwellian but it's been done outside of literature. In one instance, it made for a very ugly society that affected the world in horrid ways. Is "dear leader's" wife calling for the beginning of the end of free speech/free association/free thought? While she has no power of her own, she has notoriety and a certain gravitas with people (especially in a society where celebrities are worshipped) and should be a bit more carefully at how she wields her influence. She's either incredibly ignorant of the power of her words or incredibly hell-bent on an Orwellian nightmare society. Shame on her, either way. Interesting thing with that quote from Mrs. Obama, Michael. Did you hear a wistful "yet" in the back of your mind when she talked about no court cases for jokes or comments the "right sort" of people don't find funny? Here is the thing. I don't believe foolish idealogue liberals like the Obamas deliberately want to create a nightmare society. They simply wish to impose their values, with the very best of intentions, for our own good. They wouldn't wind up needing the thought police at all, if everyone would simply obey without question.

TheHeretic -> RE: Curiouser and Curiouser (5/28/2014 8:03:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle So, which approach is correct? Should Elam be prosecuted for inciting hate and violence? Or does his right to freedom of speech over-ride all other considerations? Free speech trumps, Tweak. Honestly though, what you snipped there doesn't sound all that different from your rantings about the Jews. Are you under indictment, or are those evil fucking Zionists not a special, protected class, in your country's censorship laws?

TheHeretic -> RE: Curiouser and Curiouser (5/28/2014 8:09:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML But historically they have been a category of 'extra-special bad.' How can we ignore all the crimes committed against blacks and gays? America's history of these grotesque acts cries out for a special category. I disagree, Vince. I think our yesterday cries out for equal justice today.

dcnovice -> RE: Curiouser and Curiouser (5/28/2014 8:10:16 PM)
quote: Interesting thing with that quote from Mrs. Obama, Michael. Did you hear a wistful "yet" in the back of your mind when she talked about no court cases for jokes or comments the "right sort" of people don't find funny? Given that Mrs. Obama didn't say "yet," we've now moved into the realm of condemning her for (imagined) thoughts--aka "thoughtcrime." Isn't that the very sort of mental policing/projection the thread was launched to protest?

TheHeretic -> RE: Curiouser and Curiouser (5/28/2014 8:13:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: dcnovice quote: Interesting thing with that quote from Mrs. Obama, Michael. Did you hear a wistful "yet" in the back of your mind when she talked about no court cases for jokes or comments the "right sort" of people don't find funny? Given that Mrs. Obama didn't say "yet," we've now moved into the realm of condemning her for (imagined) thoughts--aka "thoughtcrime." Isn't that the very sort of mental policing/projection the thread was launched to protest? Actually. DC, it was a reference to the commentators over on the left who manage to hear all sorts of words that weren't said. I'm betting DaddySatyr will catch it.

dcnovice -> RE: Curiouser and Curiouser (5/28/2014 8:25:22 PM)
Whatever you say.

DomKen -> RE: Curiouser and Curiouser (5/28/2014 8:59:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic quote: ORIGINAL: dcnovice quote: Interesting thing with that quote from Mrs. Obama, Michael. Did you hear a wistful "yet" in the back of your mind when she talked about no court cases for jokes or comments the "right sort" of people don't find funny? Given that Mrs. Obama didn't say "yet," we've now moved into the realm of condemning her for (imagined) thoughts--aka "thoughtcrime." Isn't that the very sort of mental policing/projection the thread was launched to protest? Actually. DC, it was a reference to the commentators over on the left who manage to hear all sorts of words that weren't said. I'm betting DaddySatyr will catch it. Sure it was. You're now doing what you're trying to condemn her for.

TheHeretic -> RE: Curiouser and Curiouser (5/28/2014 9:10:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Sure it was. You're now doing what you're trying to condemn her for. Whatever, Ken. DC, I like. You can't compete with an Angry Birds update.

DaddySatyr -> RE: Curiouser and Curiouser (5/28/2014 9:13:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic Actually. DC, it was a reference to the commentators over on the left who manage to hear all sorts of words that weren't said. I'm betting DaddySatyr will catch it. I wasn't sure if your tongue was planted firmly in cheek or not. However, I am loathe to comment further until I can find the actual text of Mrs. Obama's speech. To my surprise, it's not readily available in its full text form; just little snippets, here and there. I doubt there's any concerted effort to keep it from public inspection. [:D] I will say this: it is not out of character for the "leaders" on the left to take the stance of "We know what's best for all of you; no matter what you think you want". In my mind, that makes your addition of "yet" not all that far-fetched. It's the kind of thing we've been hearing about and I believe the left is trying to move us toward. I believe (and always have believed) that "hate crime" legislation is just a step on the agenda to eventually "control" thought. Let's be realistic, here; charging someone with a "hate crime enhancement" is, essentially, putting their (unproven) thoughts on trial. No? It's a damned shame that the group that used to be known as "the party of the people" is now, closer to "the peoples' party" (Rich, you'll "get" that one) [:D] Screen captures *still* RULE! Ya feel me?

DomKen -> RE: Curiouser and Curiouser (5/28/2014 9:18:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Sure it was. You're now doing what you're trying to condemn her for. Whatever, Ken. DC, I like. You can't compete with an Angry Birds update. Sure. I'll just keep pointing out your hypocrisy and laughing.

TheHeretic -> RE: Curiouser and Curiouser (5/28/2014 9:19:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr I wasn't sure if your tongue was planted firmly in cheek or not. When in doubt, check my sigline. [8D] And yes.

dcnovice -> RE: Curiouser and Curiouser (5/28/2014 9:20:16 PM)
quote: However, I am loathe to comment further until I can find the actual text of Mrs. Obama's speech. To my surprise, it's not readily available in its full text form; just little snippets, here and there. I doubt there's any concerted effort to keep it from public inspection. Two pages ago, a thoughtful dude posted links to both transcript and video. http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=4698777

DomKen -> RE: Curiouser and Curiouser (5/28/2014 9:22:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic Actually. DC, it was a reference to the commentators over on the left who manage to hear all sorts of words that weren't said. I'm betting DaddySatyr will catch it. I wasn't sure if your tongue was planted firmly in cheek or not. However, I am loathe to comment further until I can find the actual text of Mrs. Obama's speech. To my surprise, it's not readily available in its full text form; just little snippets, here and there. I doubt there's any concerted effort to keep it from public inspection. Google is your friend http://cjonline.com/news/2014-05-16/full-text-michelle-obamas-speech-you-might-have-ruffle-few-feathers

TheHeretic -> RE: Curiouser and Curiouser (5/28/2014 9:44:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr I will say this: it is not out of character for the "leaders" on the left to take the stance of "We know what's best for all of you; no matter what you think you want". In my mind, that makes your addition of "yet" not all that far-fetched. It's the kind of thing we've been hearing about and I believe the left is trying to move us toward. I believe (and always have believed) that "hate crime" legislation is just a step on the agenda to eventually "control" thought. Oh yeah. It's built into the thought patterns, but it is not unique to the left. What I won't hesitate to point out though is that the totalitarian dreams that come come from the right tend to be the sort that are specifically prohibited by the 1st Amendment, while the left has so far managed to avoid having their collection of beliefs properly labeled as an establishment of religion, no matter how irrational and faith-based they might be.

DaddySatyr -> RE: Curiouser and Curiouser (5/28/2014 10:12:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic ... but it is not unique to the left. What I won't hesitate to point out though is that the totalitarian dreams that come come from the right tend to be the sort that are specifically prohibited by the 1st Amendment, while the left has so far managed to avoid having their collection of beliefs properly labeled as an establishment of religion, no matter how irrational and faith-based they might be. And that, right there is what makes the tactics of the left so dangerous. This insidious belief that every attempt at thwarting the constitution is protected by the document, itself. Of course there's morons on the right. Fascism, I believe, is extreme right-ism (Is that a word?). The difference between the right and the left in my view is that the left attempts to usurp the constitution while pretending to be supporting it. You're right about the religious fervor that the left displays towards (almost) all things; be they religious or not. We are asked to "take things on faith" incessantly; especially by the left and later, we find out that they were just fucking us over, again. Anyway, until I find a copy of the complete text, I have to beg off my own thread. Also, I'm back in the studio this week (should take four sessions) for another addition to the ol' Youtube channel. Screen captures *still* RULE! Ya feel me?

TheHeretic -> RE: Curiouser and Curiouser (5/28/2014 10:16:59 PM)
Remarks as prepared are in the link DC posted earlier. http://cjonline.com/news/2014-05-16/full-text-michelle-obamas-speech-you-might-have-ruffle-few-feathers Whenever you are looking for a speech, try American Rhetoric. They tend to get the "as delivered" transcripts up within a couple of days as well. Great resource. Add: Here's the site http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speechbank.htm They don't have this one. If you get really bored though, they do have her 2008 convention speech, and you can chuckle to the charming story of how the responsibility of fatherhood freaked Barack out so badly he couldn't even drive the damn car home from the hospital.

DaddySatyr -> RE: Curiouser and Curiouser (5/28/2014 10:47:04 PM)
Yeah, I didn't see the link so thank you for reposting it. I've read it and while I stand by my initial reaction (and intend to delve into it, deeper, tomorrow), I have a few added musings to add (also tomorrow). As far as the 2008 speech: I always thought that Obummer was actually a pretty decent, if "way-out-in-left-field-politically" kind of guy. I believe him to be a good husband and a terrific father. I can't comment about a new father freaking out since I was one of the worst offenders when my eldest (GRHS) was born, two months before my 15th birthday. I remember freaking out and demanding that the hospital not release him because he was so yellow (I didn't know that jaundice in babies is a normal occurrence). I was sure he had Malaria or some shit. Don't even get me started about the umbilical cord, hanging out of where his belly button was supposed to be! I really have to hit the rack. It's 0144 and I have to get my three hours of sleep before my day starts at 0530. Just one parting shot (as a primer for tomorrow's post) at Mrs. Obama: White people don't seem to figure into solving any of the problems facing our country in her little scenarios. Are we to be deported? Eradicated? Pushed out of the conversations? The last would seem to fly in the face of her entire premise, sort of. Screen captures *still* RULE! Ya feel me?

subrosaDom -> RE: Curiouser and Curiouser (5/28/2014 11:08:59 PM)
The Left's religion is collectivism, and the denial of individual rights. Right spring from membership in the collective -- based on race, sex, gender, clique, friends, associates, etc. You have no individual worth except insofar as your membership in one of these groups grants you worth in their eyes. The biggest group of all is the government. Hence, great governmental power to dictate what you can and cannot do in the economic sphere and as we can now all see, in the sphere of speech. Christianity is bad (I'm an atheist, not an advocate for that, fyi). Islam is good. That kind of stuff. Science is subject to this, too. While creationism is more the province of the religious, it is not exclusively so, but "climate change deniers" have now been compared to Nazis and others. So much for science. If the government didn't have this power over us, it wouldn't matter. The left usurps government because they are the ultimate power lusters. Take it far enough, and you have radical Marxism, communism. The right's religion is God's will. We can't understand our purpose without reference to God. If you are a fundamentalist, then the Bible or whatever other tract you use is God's will. So you end up with prohibitions on various sexual behavior, or if you are fortunate enough to live in Afghanistan, you can be a pregnant woman and get stoned to death by your own family for adultery. Obviously, even Rick Santorum (who is a populist and religionist, and therefore closer to being a fascist) wouldn't advocate that. If you take the right all the way over, you end with up with a theocracy. See Iran for further information on how's that's working out. If you combine leftism and theocratic rightism, you get fascism. This is the rejection of reason in both the economic and the personal spheres of existence. It is the elimination of all individual rights. Sure the "will of the people" can replace God, but it's all the same. You have no economic rights, no rights of expression, no Bill of Rights at all. See North Korea. In his actions and in his caprice for rights and desire for power, Obama and his wife are both fascists. They lack the apparatus, the bloodlust, and perhaps the "will" of Kim Jong-un, and so there are no pogroms or political prisoner camps. But the lust for power is the same. Hence their antipathy to entrepreneurs, to the 1st amendment, the 2nd amendment and certainly the 5th and 8th amendments. Arguments could be made for the others, too, I'm sure.

tweakabelle -> RE: Curiouser and Curiouser (5/29/2014 2:05:48 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle So, which approach is correct? Should Elam be prosecuted for inciting hate and violence? Or does his right to freedom of speech over-ride all other considerations? Free speech trumps, Tweak. Honestly though, what you snipped there doesn't sound all that different from your rantings about the Jews. Are you under indictment, or are those evil fucking Zionists not a special, protected class, in your country's censorship laws? My "rantings about the Jews".....? What idiocy is this? I have never made any comment good bad or otherwise about "the Jews". If you want to insist otherwise, please produce the evidence. Remember that Israel doesn't equate to "the Jews" nor do "the Jews" equate to Israel. So you will need to find some occasion where I "ranted" about "the Jews" specifically. Good luck trying - you are going to need it! Of course if you are going to make such sweeping false claims, you need the widest possible interpretation of 'freedom of speech'. In this particular case, it looks more like you need the "freedom to lie", while remaining free from liability for the consequences of your lies.

thishereboi -> RE: Curiouser and Curiouser (5/29/2014 4:29:05 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: dcnovice quote: Interesting thing with that quote from Mrs. Obama, Michael. Did you hear a wistful "yet" in the back of your mind when she talked about no court cases for jokes or comments the "right sort" of people don't find funny? Given that Mrs. Obama didn't say "yet," we've now moved into the realm of condemning her for (imagined) thoughts--aka "thoughtcrime." Isn't that the very sort of mental policing/projection the thread was launched to protest? Where did he condemn her? and since when was voicing your opinion on what someone said mental policing? We are allowed to give our opinions here, remember? it's just a shame she's white otherwise he could have been called a racist too and we all know how fun it is to call someone a racist. Now lets see how long before someone else reads your post and jumps on the "he condemned her" wagon.

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

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875