One of the commenters declares that my "assertion that 'the best test of the truth is its ability to get accepted in the marketplace of ideas' was probably the most offensive part of her argument." When questioned about whether I really said that, he comes back with:
She cited a Justice whose name I haven't retained, as in: "As Justice X says, ..." followed by the verbatim passage I quoted.She cited a Justice whose name I haven't retained.... Oh, for the love of God, why doesn't every educated person in America know the name of the Supreme Court Justice who said that... or at the very least know that it's embarrassing not to know? As if I'd thrown out some abstruse legalistic peculiarity!
And that was part of an argument by the commenter — echoing Bob Wright — that free speech is too dangerous because it might be false and it might inspire bad people to act out in terrible ways.
Remember when lefties were all about free speech? When did that change? Why did that change? Perhaps the answer is: Free speech was only ever a means to an end. When they got their free speech, made their arguments, and failed to win over the American people, and when in fact the speech from their opponents seemed too successful, they switched to the repression of speech, because the end was never freedom.
Posts
349 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 349 of 349In all fairness, Media Matters does provide a useful function: Whenever it is used to bolster an (invariably)left-wing argument, it has the effect of outing the user as a person who wants to have their biases confirmed.
LoafingOaf, someone or other included a url to an article where the guy going after Tides said it had nothing to do with Beck. Wright claimed it was a *fact* that Beck inspired him but then said that it was "Beck or Malkin" which implies to me at least that he didn't know but was guessing.
I haven't heard of the Tides Foundation, had you? Why should Althouse have heard of it?
Forget all about that people-
you're about to get bullet trains!!!11!11
"The Democrats claimed that ObamaCare would lower overall health care costs. This has not happened and there is no known way in which it COULD happen; it goes against basic economic principles of supply and demand."
Lower demand artificially with rationing and death panels.
Keep doctors from amputating for profit.
Take the red pill and die with dignity.
The discussion of Beck came about due to the Piven controversy. Is it reasonable to expect Althouse to be familiar with every single topic Beck has ever brought-up before she can talk about this one?
That seems a little nutty to me.
"The Democrats claimed that ObamaCare would lower overall health care costs. This has not happened...."
How could it have? It won't go into effect until 2014.
"...and there is no known way in which it COULD happen; it goes against basic economic principles of supply and demand."
The theory is that premiums can be lowered if everyone is paying in, as many will be healthy and won't use their insurance. More premium payments underwrites the existing cost of care, thus permitting lower premium payments per person.
The flaw here is that we have a "for profit" healthcare system in this country, for the most part. (My insurer was a not-for-profit until the last 8 or 9 years.) More premium payments just means more profits, so the incentive is to keep premiums high and to keep raising them.
ObamaRomneyCare is a terrible system.
Speaking of the Left, another shitbag Lib has been arrested for threatening to kill a Republican and his family.
UMass Amherst "student" and "political activist" Manuel Pintado sent an e-mail to Representative Bill Snyder shortly after the Giffords shooting that included the line... “stop that ridiculous law if you value your and your familie’s lives.”
Link to Gateway Pundit:
http://gatewaypundit.rightnetwork.com/
It's ironic that people like Robert Wright blabber on and on about needing to use the power of the state to stop "right wing lies"--as if the left was ever not an engine for endless lies. See Claire Berlinski's articles in City Journal on the Soviet's long propaganda campaign to defame and destroy the West.
Our "progressive" friends have shown no interest in reporting on this story, or on translating the documents. But why should they? They were worked tirelessly to help the Soviets spread their lies, hoping to destroy our freedoms and gain themselves places in the Communist Apparat.
The theory is that premiums can be lowered if everyone is paying in, as many will be healthy and won't use their insurance. More premium payments underwrites the existing cost of care, thus permitting lower premium payments per person.
But forcing people to pay for health insurance and not use it doesn't lower overall costs, it merely shifts the burden from those who use healthcare services to those who don't.
The theory is that premiums can be lowered if everyone is paying in, as many will be healthy and won't use their insurance. More premium payments underwrites the existing cost of care, thus permitting lower premium payments per person.
But, it ignores another small economic reality, which is that when a good or service appears to be free, or fairly cheap, its demand increases. And, likely here, substantially.
The flaw here is that we have a "for profit" healthcare system in this country, for the most part. (My insurer was a not-for-profit until the last 8 or 9 years.) More premium payments just means more profits, so the incentive is to keep premiums high and to keep raising them.
The flaw there is the implied assumption that for-profit companies gouge. Maybe if they can, but the reality is that the return on investment in health insurance companies is lower than in many other industries. It is called competition.
The insanity here is that ObamaCare's attempt to control "profits" in the medical insurance industry is the cause of most of the exemptions that the Administration has provided its political supporters.
After all this song-and-dance about getting all the lying liars off the air, Eponym wants us to put our trust in David "Trust me, I lied" Brock? Hilarious!
Public schools, public housing, public beaches...do any of them measure up to their private counterparts? No. Nor will public health care.
Fortunately, the ideas that 1)"free speech" consists of a right to permanently occupy a particular paid position and 2)that nutty, evidence-free conspiracy theories represent a valuable contribution the "marketplace of ideas"* have already been refuted by another UW-M law professor. That saves some time!
*A phrase that, as far as I can tell, was never used by Oliver Wendell Holmes, although he endorsed a similar concept for reasons different than civil libertarians (which Holmes very definitely was not) do.
Althouse comments that Beck is like a "teacher" on Fox News.
Her university once hired a teacher who was into 9/11 conspiracy theories, and she and her commenters were extremely concerned about this.
Wright stated that Beck had spent months telling people, in obsessive fashion, what Wright characterized as a nutty and false conspiracy theory that the Tides Foundation is part of a communist plot to infiltrate society and seize control of big business. Then he pointed out that a man subscribing to this conspiracy theory actually attempted to mass-murder people at the Tides Foundation.
Wright felt either Beck doesn't believe what he's saying, and is thus immoral, or his belief in that nonsense means he's crazy, and in either case Fox News should exercise its discretion and not keep him teaching people such nutty, false things on their airwaves.
Althouse kept saying she knew nothing of what Beck was saying about the Tides Foundation. Couldn't she still have handled the question as a hypothetical, instead of sidesteping it?
While, according to Althouse, Beck is like a "teacher", and his viewers are like students tuning in to learn, Althouse says that if he's teaching crazy, despicable stuff it's not that big a deal because "people are not that vulnerable to teachers". Yet she and many of her commenters had been worried that people were vulnerable to the 9/11 Truther conspiracy theorist at her university. (I realize that some of the concerns about students in a real classroom don't apply to TV viewers becoming "students" of a Fox News "teacher", but some of them do.)
Also, while Althouse first claims people tune in to Beck because he talks to them as if they're intelligent and they want to think, she later says Beck is really just telling people what to think, unlike how she believes a classroom should be run. If so, and if Wright's characterization of the Tides Foundation stuff is accurate, doesn't that mean Beck is trying to indoctrinate people into believing clearly nutty and false things?
Unlike her university, Fox News is not the state, and a decision to not renew Beck's contract over the nutty things he teaches on the air doesn't involve the First Amendment. If Wright's characterization of Beck's content is accurate, why shouldn't Fox News be concerned about Beck like Althouse was about the University of Wisconsin's Truther? Beck reaches far more people - and far more mentally unbalanced people -than a college instructor.
Free Speech to the Left is like Democracy to Edrogan. Who famously said "Democracy is like a Streetcar, when you get to your stop you get off".
The Left used free speech to leverage themselves into power. And now, like the Japanese Emperor who was born a serf and rose to the position, they are trying to stop anyone else from using that tactic to attain power.
Beck reaches far more people - and far more mentally unbalanced people - than a college instructor.
I'd offer a defense of Beck, but I'm not in a position to. While I don't listen to him, LoafingOaf's comment is proof he's clearly reached at least one mentally unbalanced individual.
Synova, does it matter if the guy who went after Tides got into the conspiracy theory through Beck, Malkin, or somewhere else? The point is, it's a false and crazy conspiracy theory that now has a history of causing someone who bought into it to try and murder people. Should Fox be allowing Beck to obsessively teach that false and nutty conspiracy theory?
Also, since Althouse didn't know any of the facts about Beck before she decided to do a Bloggingheads about Beck, couldn't she have addressed it by taking Wright's facts as hypothetical facts about a hypothetical TV host? It seemed she didn't want to.
dpd: "The discussion of Beck came about due to the Piven controversy. Is it reasonable to expect Althouse to be familiar with every single topic Beck has ever brought-up before she can talk about this one?
That seems a little nutty to me."
When Althouse wanted to discuss the 9/11 Truther teaching at her university without getting into the facts of his conspiracy theories, she did so.
For example, Althouse once posted this when discussing the 9/11 Truther at her university: "I put to the side the case of Kevin Barrett and said I did not know the facts. Moving to the level of abstraction, I asked a neutral question that was intended to facilitate thinking about what to do in the case of a job applicant who takes a truly nutty position. By the way, it's the work of a law professor to propose hypotheticals to assist students in thinking about legal problems outside of the context of a particular case.
"
So why did Althouse sidestep Wright's example by claiming she could not speak to it at all because she'd have to research the facts?
"It would've been a better Bloggingheads if Althouse had been prepared and could have addressed the specific Beck controversy Wright was using to make his argument."
Well, we share topics and links beforehand. I don't know why Bob didn't tell me in advance he would bring that up or I'd have read it. I gave him my links for the Frances Fox Piven stuff. Instead of talking with me about that, he changed the subject. Then he changed it again so it wasn't Beck working for Fox News. It was basically Hitler.
"But forcing people to pay for health insurance and not use it doesn't lower overall costs, it merely shifts the burden from those who use healthcare services to those who don't."
No one has ever said the actual costs of medical treatment will be lowered; more people paying into the pool means, everything else being equal, the price we must pay for insurance per person can be reduced. Like when you have a party and want to get a keg...the cost of the keg is what it is, but it costs each person less to buy it if 10 people contribute rather than only four or five.
As for shifing the burden from those who use healthcare to those who don't, yes, if you want to see it that way. It can also be viewed as sharing costs among everyone in order to lower the expenses to everyone, as is the case with public services such as roads, bridges, schools, police and fire departments, public waterworks, etc.
Sooner or later, everyone will be or will know or be related to a patient receiving expensive care. It's in the interests of everyone that we devise a practical means of providing affordable healthcare. One can be a hardworking, prudent, thrifty, responsible good citizen who pays all his bills and saves money rigorously, and yet still be wiped out financially in the event of a catastrophic illness or injury to oneself or a family member, or worse, be financially wiped out and still lack the means to obtain sufficient treatment to recover from the injury or illness.
If one lives in a purely dog-eat-dog world, I guess this is not considered a travesty, but we are humans and can choose not to have a dog-eat-dog society.
This is why we need single-payer, or universal healthcare, where we all have tax-subsidized health care, "Medicare For All."
I would say the left wasn't especially in favor of freedom when the student union activities board I was on brought Phyllis Schlafly to campus and lots of people tried to get us stopped on the grounds that giving her viewpoint any air was misuse of their registration fees... something no one had said when we brought Allen Ginsberg, say, the same year.
Which was 1981, I believe. So this is nothing new to me.
(By the way, I still think Schlafly is a bit of a nut, but she is a GREAT speaker, and how can you consider yourself educated if you're not going up against the best the other side has?)
"So why did Althouse sidestep Wright's example by claiming she could not speak to it at all because she'd have to research the facts?"
What was the hypothetical supposed to be? It was up to Wright to frame it. If it was about the causal connection between speech and action, I need to know how close the connection was to understand the point even at the abstract level.
"The Left used free speech to leverage themselves into power."
Heh. You speak as if we have a leftwing government. As if.
Loafing Oaf: Help me understand the comparison between a university employed truther, a believer in facts that do not align with what people witnessed with their own eyes with the worst Beck example you can think of. Thanks
Few, if any, of the positions and words of the Left have any permanent meaning. The ACLU isn't about advancing civil rights, but using the club of civil rights as a club to beat on the US. Ditto NOW, PETA, all environmental causes, unions, etc.
NOW can be for or against the abuse of women, it just depends on whether that abuse today advances the revolutionary cause or not. Bob Packwood vs. Bill Clinton, for example.
But conservatives want to be nice and be seen as being nice so they refuse to properly label the Left and they speak in the moderate and ineffective words that never persuade the moderates and the TV watchers.
Lefvties want civility because it shuts up conservatives. Lefties want PC speech because it shuts up conservatives. Lefties want green energy because it de-industrializes America. Lefties are the useful idiots the communists employ to defeat America. And not wanting to hurt America isn't the same as not hurting America.
Your free speech will always be protected if I have anything to say about it
Indeed. Furthermore, some of us would rather talk to people we disagree with. What fun is an argument with someone who agrees with you on everything? Taking away free speech would make that impossible.
If I could ban speech, though, it would be all these people who call everything a "lie" that they disagree with. That annoys the crap out of me (I still wouldnt' ban it, I guess, I'm just saying).
I am fascinated how the lefties (the regulars and the drop-ins) do whatever they can to change the subject.
Of course, if the knuckleheaded non-lefties wouldn't allow them to do so and follow the threadjacks away from the topic at hand, that'd make for fewer comments, but...
... nevermind, carry on.
Remember when lefties were all about free speech? When did that change? Why did that change?
They were all about it when it suited their needs and desires to control. Now they no longer control the content of free speech and they don't like it. Being a singular voice is powerful, but when your ideas now must join a larger ocean of cacophonous ideas, you get drowned out and when you are a leftard and no one is listening to you, the temper tantrum begins about how danger free speech can be as a means to try and control it again by regulating it.
Leftards can't win and they shouldn't in this debate.
Sooner or later, everyone will be or will know or be related to a patient receiving expensive care. It's in the interests of everyone that we devise a practical means of providing affordable healthcare.
Actually, no. Not everyone will. Most maybe. But not all. This is the fiction that was used to justify the individual mandate.
There are number of people in this world who do not intentionally participate in the regular health care market, and therefore also not in the health care insurance market. For some, this is religious. And that means that if they are sick, they either get better, or they die, as is God's will.
I'm trying to listen to Mr. Wright, but he's driving me nuts, not with his views but with his voice. Why the heck is he shrieking? Calm down, dude...
"The ACLU isn't about advancing civil rights...."
So I guess when the ACLU has defended the rights of American Nazis and KKKers to hold their rallies and marches, (among other unsavories and their causes), they're really just beating up on the US.
As you and many commenters say, the left didn't "turn against" free speech. It was always about power for them, unlike for Justice Holmes back then and the Tea Party constitutional conservatives today. For us it was always about free speech, both when we were feeling powerless in the face of the Gramscian march through the institutions during the last period of time and now when we have pushed back and many of our representatives are in power thanks to our ability to exercise that freedom.
May the best argument win!
Oaf, when you talk about Beck's nutty conspiracy theories on the Tides Foundation, what exactly are you referring to?
Because I'm watching the videos right now and they doesn't seem crazy at all. Tides is a Soros-funded left-wing nonprofit and they're pushing enviro propaganda into churches and schools. You might call it educational outreach because you buy into it, but whether Tides is engaged in propaganda or educational outreach is strictly a matter of opinion.
Where's the nutty conspiracy theory?
It's pretty interesting that Feder and Loafing Oaf have shown up after long abscesses to weigh in and obfuscate this subject. We must have them on the run if they are emptied the looney bin and brought those guys out in the light of day.
Do they have a bat-shit crazy signal or something?
This is why we need single-payer, or universal healthcare, where we all have tax-subsidized health care, "Medicare For All."
Not really sure why I should accept worse health care for more money so that those who would rather party than pay premiums or don't work can get health insurance. You need to do more than waive the pretend economics of ObamaCare around to convince people that they should back it.
ObamaCare would (will?) fail economically for the same reasons that liberal policies invariably fail - they ignore economics and economic reality. In this case, you just can't cover more people for more things at a lower cost, just by passing a 2,000+ page bill that no one had a chance to read before voting on it. The 2,000+ pages were an attempt to overrule economic reality, and the program will/would be just as effective as Canute telling the sea to subside.
(The Crypto Jew)
Medicare for all
Great, Medicare, which loses money, which piggy-backs off of Private Insurance and which has a higher rate of refusal of treatment than Private Insurance . Man, what a plan….
Synova, does it matter if the guy who went after Tides got into the conspiracy theory through Beck, Malkin, or somewhere else? The point is, it's a false and crazy conspiracy theory that now has a history of causing someone who bought into it to try and murder people. Should Fox be allowing Beck to obsessively teach that false and nutty conspiracy theory? (Bolding added.)
The falsity of Beck's claims are not nearly as clear as you and Mr. Wright seem to believe.
I first became aware of the Tides Foundation during the 2004 presidential election. Tides received some of its funding from the foundation controlled by John Kerry's wife. Tides made large contributions to ACORN's get out the vote effort. An effort that would benefit John Kerry. Given those facts, it's not unreasonable to believe that Mrs. Kerry's funding of the Tides Foundation was, at worst, an indirect contribution to John Kerry's presidential campaign.
These are the types of connections Beck has been drawing. He shows where the Tides Foundation gets much of its funding (from George Soros related entities) and then shows how Tides uses its funds to advocate, propagandize, and indoctrinate positions that are near and dear to Mr. Soros. (This is hardly surprising. Most of us don't give to organizations we disagree with.) Beck then closes the loop by asserting that Soros "controls" the Tides Foundation.
Such connections and the implications Beck draws from them are extremely difficult to prove or disprove. So, how again, has Beck's claims been proven so clearly false that Fox should be compelled (by it's own standards, not compelled by the government) to remove Beck?
Before you answer, be sure to recall all the connections the Left tried to make between Bush, Halliburton, and the Iraq war. Should liberal pundits have been fired because they raised the specter that Bush's policies were designed to enrich his friends more than to serve the interest of the nation?
So I guess when the ACLU has defended the rights of American Nazis and KKKers to hold their rallies and marches, (among other unsavories and their causes), they're really just beating up on the US.
The planned Nazi march through Skokie was in 1977. That's 34 years ago, in case your math is rusty. I'm not aware of any ACLU efforts since then when they stood up for the rights of people not well to the left of center. Can you document any efforts of the ACLU to defend anybody not well to the left of center (which, I recognize, still places them well to the right of you) since then?
"You need to do more than waive the pretend economics of ObamaCare around to convince people that they should back it."
I don't support ObamaRomneyCare...it merely propagates a failed, for-profit system that continues to enrich the private health insurance companies.
We need to remove the private health insurers from the equation altogether, and have our medical care underwritten by our taxes.
"Not really sure why I should accept worse health care for more money so that those who would rather party than pay premiums or don't work can get health insurance."
I hate to assume you're dumb, so I'll assume you're dishonest. Who says the health care would be worse? We won't know until we create the system. Who says only those who "would rather party than pay premiums" would be helped, or are not already being harmed by our present system? Who says only those who don't work don't have health insurance? Many employers don't provide insurance or provide insurance that is either too expensive to be affordable to their employees or that provides substandard coverage, or both. And why is it fair that employers should have to bear the burden of providing group coverage for their employees, anyway? And why do you assume those not working are "partying?" We have an unemployment crisis going on this country, if you hadn't bothered to notice, with actual unemployment being estimated by some as about double the reported 9.X %. Should hard-working, thrifty good citizens be abandoned without healthcare just because their jobs have been outsourced or their employers put out of business?
Nothing much to offer on this particular thread. I would suggest though that lumping people in as left, conservative, liberal, progressive, etc is not very helpful until terms are defined.
There seems to me to be in the literature a long and rather distinguished discussion of free speech starting with Plato's allegory of the cave thru John Milton's Aeropagtica, John Stuart Mills On Freedom, and Oliver Wendell Holmes opinions. Many others including the bomb throwers like Lenny Bruce and even Mario Savio, who, I think, were challenging us to assess what we mean by free speech.
We seem to be revisiting a debate that has been going on thru 2500 years.
The other maxim I think relative in the discussion is that there are questions of fact (debateable and provable) and questions of opinion (debateable but not provable)-- sometimes there is some wisdom in the many philosophers who have preceded us prior to the internet and blogging heads.
Bob Wright what a whiner....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AkggyqUWDME&feature=related
Now that we've established that the Dems lied about HRC, we should address the real questions: Why did they lie to us? What is their real goal?
Read it and weep Glenn-tards!
I'm not particularly a fan of Glenn Beck (though he's clearly good at what he does and makes a nice living doing it) but it seem to me that calling someone retarded is not the optimum method of convincing them. But then, you're not interested in convincing anyone, you're primary goal is to say, "Look at me, I'm better than you!"
Robert Cook--I agree with Trooper that you are principled in your arguments. I have to take issue with this assertion: "I hate to assume you're dumb, so I'll assume you're dishonest."
You really are capable of much better arguments than reverting to false choice and ad hominem. That is simply not up to your usually high standards.
She cited a Justice whose name I haven't retained.... Oh, for the love of God, why doesn't every educated person in America know the name of the Supreme Court Justice who said that... or at the very least know that it's embarrassing not to know? As if I'd thrown out some abstruse legalistic peculiarity!
Or, couldn't she just rewind the video to the point where you cited the SC Justice? As a techie, I find that retarded.
I hate to assume you're dumb, so I'll assume you're dishonest. Who says the health care would be worse? We won't know until we create the system. Who says only those who "would rather party than pay premiums" would be helped, or are not already being harmed by our present system? Who says only those who don't work don't have health insurance? Many employers don't provide insurance or provide insurance that is either too expensive to be affordable to their employees or that provides substandard coverage, or both. And why is it fair that employers should have to bear the burden of providing group coverage for their employees, anyway? And why do you assume those not working are "partying?"
Assume whatever you wish. But, no, I was not assuming that those not working were partying, but rather, were another, likely not proper, set of people who stand to benefit from ObamaCare (i.e. there is probably some overlap between the groups, but how much is irrelevant to my point).
Why not give it a chance? Because I do not believe that there is much of anything that the government can do well or efficiently. And, definitely not run 1/6 or so of our economy. We have to live with the innate inefficiencies of the government in certain limited roles - such as military/defense. But that is not because they are efficient, or not even moderately inefficient, but rather, because there is no realistic alternative.
You can suggest places where the government has operated efficiently. But if you can find one or two, I would suggest that they would not have even a small portion of the complexity and size of our health care system.
Do I trust bureaucrats over company employees deciding what medical care I am entitled to? Not on your life. If the company screws up, and refuses to pay for something, I can sue them, and will have a decent chance at winning. In the case of the government, you are SOL - it is called sovereign immunity.
Althouse: re OWH--you are a lawyer so you would groove on OWH; the fact that many if not most American's dont know the opinions of Justiced Holmes suggests to me you need to expand your world view and recognize that most americans are not lawyers and really dont give a damn. The outrage is, of course, quite endearing.
Like when you have a party and want to get a keg...the cost of the keg is what it is, but it costs each person less to buy it if 10 people contribute rather than only four or five.
So the 15 year old at the party who is not drinking should contribute equally to the 29 year old guy who is drinking half the keg? This is what passes for fairness.
In this case, you just can't cover more people for more things at a lower cost
Exactly. Something has to give. We didn’t need to read 2k pages of the bill to see that. All we needed to do is use basic math skills to weigh all the promises. They are impossible because the only way to get real cost cuts is rationing, and most of us don’t want that. Most of us are ok with what we have. The major of the ones who don’t have insurance are young and have very little need of it. Most of the others could be covered by various public programs already in existence or go the ER and manage. It’s not a perfect system, but it’s better than the other.
Roger J., you're right, and I apologize to Bruce for the remark.
I let myself get irritated with his unfair assumption that those lacking health insurance must be in some way responsible for their lack, that they would "rather party than work" or are necessarily in other ways derelict.
There are many Americans who have played by the rules who are getting screwed in our present system. Leaving them aside, is it humane to let anyone suffer or die for lack of health insurance, whatever the reason?
"When did the left turn against free speech?"
Isn't the rhetorical question the most effective debating tactic ever?
"So the 15 year old at the party who is not drinking should contribute equally to the 29 year old guy who is drinking half the keg? This is what passes for fairness."
Oy vey!
Robert: As I said--you are principled. Hope you remain with this blog--I value your input--almost never agree with it :)
but you make me think.
(The Crypto Jew)
Isn't the rhetorical question the most effective debating tactic ever?
Oh I don’t know, claiming your opponents are:
1) Sexist;
2) Racist;
3) Homophobic; or
4) Responsible for the violent acts of lunatics
Is a pretty good one too.
No one has ever said the actual costs of medical treatment will be lowered; more people paying into the pool means, everything else being equal, the price we must pay for insurance per person can be reduced.
So when Obama repeatedly vowed to "bend the cost curve downwards" was he referring to the costs of healthcare to the Federal government or to individuals?
" Leaving them aside, is it humane to let anyone suffer or die for lack of health insurance, whatever the reason?"
Humane? perhaps you ought to read the HCR law for yourself. "Humanity" is not the goal, "cost-effectiveness" is. Just like we're all entitled to a garbage public education, we'll all be entitled to garbage health care. But it will be "fair", so let's do it.
That was typical of your honesty and generosity Robert. Good show.
"Is it humane to let anyone suffer or die for lack of health insurance, whatever the reason?"
Of course not and even the most conservative member of this board would not hesitate the help the truly indigent. What we don't want are the people who "game" system whether it be health care recipients or providers. This is truly a false choice. What is a reality is that "death panels" will allocate limited resources based on the decisions of government bureaucrats. With certain “favored” classes getting the benefit of those scarce resources.
The people who end up paying the bills are not going to go for that.
"Humane? perhaps you ought to read the HCR law for yourself."
Uh...Lincolntf? I don't support ObamaRomneyCare. I am in favor of universal coverage, Medicare for all, health care available to everyone, underwritten by our taxes.
The ObamaRomney HCR has nothing to do with what we actually need.
"A university must exercise judgment. We don't hire just anybody at random."
From what I've seen I'd rather send my progeny to a University that hires at random. You may not get all the best minds (who often hand off the teaching to assistants anyway), but the current number of the nut cases with tenure would never occur randomly.
Can you document any efforts of the ACLU to defend anybody not well to the left of center (which, I recognize, still places them well to the right of you) since then?
http://www.aclufightsforchristians.com/
"is it humane to let anyone suffer or die for lack of health insurance, whatever the reason?"
No, but it happens under government controlled systems anyway. It just happens equally among those who are wiling and those who are not willing to insure themselves. So it's more equal, but not more humane, and it's substantially less fair to punish equally the responsible and the irresponsible.
Universities dont really exercise judgment: they hire people that look like them, and in accordance with the accepted rules of academic hiring; these rules are informal, of course,but well known--for example: a newly minted PhD from an Ivy is not going to be hired by an ivy--they have to drop down a tier; similarly for mid level schools--you have go down a tier and then work your way back up. A pertinent question for our hostess may be how many newly minted UW PhDs are hired at the UW?
I suspect very few if any.
It's because "Lefties" have such a feeling that they are morally superior. Any of their bad characteristics are projected onto their opponents. Witness the disdain w/ which Obama projected when P. Ryan totally dismantled Obamacare during the "Summit", and then declaring that the "debate was over". Witness the "Violent Right" meme by the "journolist" media, when just about ALL domestic acts of violence are committed by Leftists. Witness the "Civility" meme of Journolist, when it is Leftwing groups that called for the hanging of Bush, or attack Palin unmercily.
Witness the "Lefties" right here that immediately resort to ad hominem.
Ann, why are you even arguing this point? THESE ARE YOUR PEOPLE! You yourself advertised the fact that you were going to vote for Obama, a community organizer who has never held a real job in his LIFE, for crying out loud. Now you want to argue that his fellow travelers are fascists?
Too late, lady. Those of us who stayed sane through the 08 elections knew then that these people would try to run roughshod over us and we're fighting it without you now. We don't even WANT your help now. A weak ally is worse than a strong opponent.
The rest of this post has been censored because of language, violence and excessive nudity.
It (the idea that the left has always been for free speech) has always ony been a means to an end. Notice how "speaking truth to power" immediately becomes racism when their guys are in power? Notice how at any college campus it's always the lefties that try to drown out the speakers.
Even back in the 60's the left was never about free speech. They were about disruption, which meant usually getting in peoples faces and drowing out their speech. How many college campuses were taken over by students demanding to be heard?
Free speech means "you must listen to me" when it comes from the left and free speech means "Shut up" when they're talking.
COLORADO SPRINGS –The Colorado Springs Gazette has reported that a local middle school has announced a policy forbidding students from wearing certain Christian symbols to school, unless they are worn underneath clothing.
The ACLU strongly opposes the decision of Colorado Springs School District 11 on the basis of religious liberty.
Mark Silverstein, Legal Director of the ACLU said, “The First Amendment protects the right of students to express their faith by wearing crosses, rosaries, or other religious symbols without interference from school officials. Our Constitution protects the right to individual religious liberty and the ACLU is here to support everyone who chooses to exercise that right.”
NEWARK — The American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey today revisited the most important student speech case — Tinker v. Des Moines — with a friend-of-the-court brief submitted in support of a Bridgeton High School student’s right to wear a red armband bearing the word “life.”
NASHVILLE, TN - Students from Belmont, MTSU and Tennessee Tech who hold church services with the homeless in a Metro park will be allowed to continue conducting services after the ACLU of Tennessee (ACLU-TN) successfully negotiated with the Metro Board of Parks and Recreation to revise a policy that unfairly blocked religious groups' regular use of park space. ACLU-TN commended the Board's Tuesday vote to change the language of its policy so that it will no longer prohibit regular religious speech in public parks.
GAINESVILLE, Fla. – The American Civil Liberties Union of Florida filed a federal lawsuit today against the Alachua County School District charging that school administrators unlawfully censored students’ free speech on multiple occasions when high school, middle school and elementary school students were suspended and/or threatened with suspension for wearing tee shirts promoting their religious beliefs about Christianity and Islam in school and at school events earlier this school year.
CAPE GIRARDEAU, Mo. — The ACLU filed a lawsuit Tuesday against a southeast Missouri city after a former library worker claimed she was disciplined when she refused to work at an event to promote a Harry Potter book due to her religious beliefs.
NATCHITOCHES, LA--Today the American Civil Liberties Union of Louisiana filed a lawsuit on behalf of a lone protestor who was denied his free expression rights by the City of Natchitoches. Edwin Crayton, a devout Christian, sought to stand in front of Wal-Mart in Natchitoches with a sign protesting Wal-Mart's alleged position on gay marriage.
PHOENIX -- A federal lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the City’s new policy that bans all non-commercial advertising on city transit buses was filed late today in the U.S. District Court in Phoenix.
Children of the Rosary (COR), its president Katherine Sabelko and the Arizona Civil Liberties Union(AzCLU) filed suit jointly after their requests to place advertisements were denied because they did not meet with the City’s "Advertising Standards."
WEST PALM BEACH, FL -- In the first case to be filed under Florida's new Religious Freedom Restoration Act, the American Civil Liberties Union of Florida goes to trial today on behalf of seven families seeking to prevent the removal and destruction of religious symbols placed at the gravesites of their loved ones.
RICHMOND, VA - Under pressure from the American Civil Liberties Union of Virginia, Falmouth Waterside Park Manager Brian Robinson has agreed not to prohibit baptisms in Stafford County, the ACLU announced today.
"Synova, does it matter if the guy who went after Tides got into the conspiracy theory through Beck, Malkin, or somewhere else?"
Yes, it does. Because if it doesn't matter then this...
"The point is, it's a false and crazy conspiracy theory that now has a history of causing someone who bought into it to try and murder people."
... is a despicable lie.
Either something "has a history of *causing*" violence or it doesn't. Saying that the TRUTH does not matter and then saying this...
"Should Fox be allowing Beck to obsessively teach that false and nutty conspiracy theory?"
... is just revealing how much the call to oppose falsehood is, itself, an opportunistic lie.
And really... if conspiracies are bad, what about all the claims that someone *caused* a violent event... connect the dots!!! Beck said this, and then this other person, who says Beck did not influence him did that! Palin put little crosshairs on congressional districts and some lefty nutcase shot a bunch of people. Connect the dots!!
Why is it that Beck is singled out as not getting to connect dots? Hm?
Fire doesn't melt steel and we're just asking questions don't make us provide answers! Bush lied. The polar bears are dying and anything lie to get people to act on global warming is justified.
I am in favor of universal coverage, Medicare for all, health care available to everyone, underwritten by our taxes.
Also: unicorns.
RC said: is it humane to let anyone suffer or die for lack of health insurance
I'll step in for Original Mike here and repeat his often-made point that people die from lack of health CARE not lack of health INSURANCE. And Obamacare is about insurance and its financing.
"Just like we're all entitled to a garbage public education...."
For many years, American public education was very good to excellent. It is not axiomatic that services provided by government must be bad. Neither is it axiomatic that services provided by the private sector must be good, (as is demonstrated frequently by the scams and substandard products and services provided by private vendors, as well as by the great financial and environmental and personal harm that has been wreaked by private business practices and activities). It all has to do with what we'll accept and what we demand.
OK, Robert.
Did you oppose or support Romney's vetoes (promptly overridden) of "RomneyCare"? Do you know about them, or the decades of maneuvering/debate that preceded them? I had the advantage of living in MA for Romney's entire term (plus another 30-odd years), and saw the "reform" taking shape long before Romney was a blip on the political radar screen. Equating his efforts (never minding the huge FEDERALISM siren that should be goinbg off in your head) with Obama's is foolish.
No matter what.
You'd have a difficult task convincing me that the left was EVER for free speech.
"It all has to do with what we'll accept and what we demand."
- Future Public Health Care "Provider" Unions
Attribution is important.
""The Democrats claimed that ObamaCare would lower overall health care costs. This has not happened...."
How could it have? It won't go into effect until 2014."
It went into effect a year ago. As soon as people get the idea that something is going to happen, they start to react to it. My health insurer even sent me a thoughtful little note, saying that DUE TO THE NEW HEALTHCARE LEGISLATION their premiums were going up 20 FREAKING PERCENT. How is this better than the single-to-low-double-digit-increases I was experiencing before?
Destroy the lawyers and put Ann and Glenn out of business. That is the only way we're going to be able to afford to breathe, much less get a prescription filled. I used to think lawyers were worthy of respect and admiration. I no longer think that. I actually think some very different things entirely about lawyers.
"I used to think lawyers were worthy of respect and admiration. I no longer think that. I actually think some very different things entirely about lawyers."
Welcome to the real world buddy.
Did Joe Stalin care about "free speech?" Did Mao? How about Castro? No one on the Left ever has or ever will. The absolute only thing they care about is the advancement of worldwide Socialism/Communism.
"I'll step in for Original Mike here and repeat his often-made point that people die from lack of health CARE not lack of health INSURANCE."
Yes, and under our current healthcare delivery model, lack of health INSURANCE guarantees lack of health CARE.
"Obamacare is about insurance and its financing."
Yes, and ObamaRomneyCare is not a solution to our health care crisis.
Re the discussion about lawyers, it seems to me Sergeant Major Timothy Quincannon would have some appropriate comments--will have to do some research. Probably something about keeping the lawyers away from the mules....
Oh, hey. I'm sorry. I totally misread what LoafingOaf said.
The conspiracy *theory* has produced a nutjob set on violence so that *theory* ought to be suppressed.
Okie-dokie.
And I'll give you one crazy-ass global warming hostage taker with a side serving of the Weather Underground.
@Trooper York:
"Welcome to the real world buddy."
Hey, cut me some slack. I'm an idealist and want to think the best of people. At least I didn't vote for Obama, like a certain law professor I won't name in the interest of not prejudicing this blog's audience.
You really are a dirtbag, Ann. I had SUCH a high opinion of you before 2008. I even thought you were hot, and entertained the notion of starting a movement to get a calendar made with pics of you.
I wish you could have found some other, more kind way to disabuse me of that notion. Maybe even a way you could climb down from. But that really took the cake. Nothing hurts worse than being smacked upside the head by one of your own heroes.
Wow, Dan. You have issues.
RC: Yes, and under our current healthcare delivery model, lack of health INSURANCE guarantees lack of health CARE.
Fail. Plenty of people pay cash immediately or on installment.
Also, the government could theoretically pay for health care for the destitute without destroying health insurance for the rest of the population. It's only when tax-payer supported (read: free-money) programs are expanded to a large segment of the population that they effectively kill the insurance market.
There's been plenty of talk about how uninsured free-riders at ERs drive up costs to the rest of the system, but very little discussion (that I've heard) about the industry and individual borne costs of low Medicare reimbursement. I'm willing to bet that the losses to Medicare are greater overall.
Dan, call your sponsor.
Dude you got to dail it back a little.
I mean I know Simon's slot on the board is still open but he was way more circumspect. Or maybe it was circumcised.
Anyway, I don't think this is something that amuses Meade. Just sayn'
I mean why not try to be a wordy insect or pompous limey ghost. Those slots are open too!
However you can't be a terrorist lover or be obsessed by Sarah Palin's vagina because Feder and Loafing Oaf are back in town. Just sayn'
On the other hand you can be a senile Hero of the Soviet Union posting from your full Depends. That spot is open.
Also red headed historian, cool motorcyle riding blogmaster and tennis playing MILF.
Take your pick dude.
Synova,
I think you are dead-on correct in pointing out the left's double standard when it comes to "connecting dots".
Millions of Democrats payed good money to see Fahrenheit 9/11 . That has got to be a gold standard for acceptance of wacky theories. Is there anything on the right that even comes close to this?
"Wow, Dan. You have issues."
Yes. Yes, I do.
Yes, and under our current healthcare delivery model, lack of health INSURANCE guarantees lack of health CARE.
I don’t have vision insurance but somehow have managed to see the doctor without it. Have also gotten plenty of flu shots that were not paid for by insurance. Haven't even used my insurance for prescriptions lately because generics are so cheap...
Oh, and I suppose in our supercharged words=violence culture, I should make a formal statement that I have never met Ann in person, that we've never exchanged emails or any other form of personal contact, that I only wish her good health and happiness to the end of her days (which I actually do, regardless of her 08 vote) and that I have never committed an act of violence (except for a fight I got into in the 5th grade which I hope for current purposes can be ignored) and never intend to commit an act of violence toward anybody, ever, in any way whatsoever. My NRA membership notwithstanding.
I'm sure some lefty on here will find a way to put me in jail anyway just on my admission of NRA membership, but I thought I'd give it the old college try anyway.
As i suspected. Cost of uncompensated health care nationwide (2007) $34 billion. Cost of unreimbursed Medicare discount nationwide (2008) $88.8 billion. So government interference with the health care market already costs paying private customers more than twice as much as indigent care.
Sorry about following Cook's tangent way off-thread, but couldn't resist running this down.
Welcome Dan-o.
By the way that Korean Chick you have on the Five-0 team is way too skinny.
Lincolntf:
Whatever may have gone on in the making of RomneyCare, he stands by it:
http://www.frumforum.com/romneys-sticking-by-romneycare
When he was still running for President, I remember him boasting of his achievement in fashioning a healthcare solution for Massachusetts.
I am not interested in hashing out the particulars here of the proper role of the individual states vs. that of the federal government. My point is that, contrary to the misperceptions and misrepresentations of the right wing, Obamacare--it's manifest failings aside--is not a "socialist takeover" of healthcare. It is based on a Republican model, and is beneficial mostly to the health insurers.
I mean she way too skinny.
"..Public schools, public housing, public beaches...do any of them measure up to their private counterparts? No. Nor will public health care..."
You forgot public restroom.
On the other hand, Jean Smart is looking way hot as the governor of Hawaii.
I mean as a hot female governor of a state not contingous to the lower forty eight...why I am surprised that Loafing Oaf is not obsessing about her vagina. Just sayn'
Robert Cook:
"Obamacare--it's manifest failings aside--is not a "socialist takeover" of healthcare. It is based on a Republican model, and is beneficial mostly to the health insurers."
In Massachusetts, the legislature enjoys and has since Romney's time, a veto-proof majority. All the governor could do was make the law slightly less crazy. That a Massachusetts Republican had a hand in it doesn't make it a "Republican model".
So you were, and remain, ignorant of the health care battle in MA, except for a single article by the Frumpkin?
"I don’t have vision insurance but somehow have managed to see the doctor without it. Have also gotten plenty of flu shots that were not paid for by insurance. Haven't even used my insurance for prescriptions lately because generics are so cheap..."
Mmmm...that's nice, Shanna, but what about real health care? What if you were diagnosed with a life-threatening illness that required extensive hospitalization and costly treatment? What if your spouse or child were grievously injured in an accident and required extensive hospitalization and costly treatment? Do you have insurance that would cover it? If so, you're fortunate; if not, you would discover how terrible a situation you would be in, (beyond just the grave illness or injury). Either you would not get the health care necessary, resulting in possible death or long-term impaired health for yourself or your loved ones, or you could be bankrupted.
I suspect you wouldn't be so sanguine about matters if you found yourself in those circumstances.
"So you were, and remain, ignorant of the health care battle in MA, except for a single article by the Frumpkin?"
I'm not conversant in the particulars, no, but it's not material to my point. If you think it is, or should be, please elaborate.
"In Massachusetts, the legislature enjoys and has since Romney's time, a veto-proof majority. All the governor could do was make the law slightly less crazy. That a Massachusetts Republican had a hand in it doesn't make it a 'Republican model."
Romney has not disavowed it--he still stands by it--and when campaigning for President he extolled its virtues and deemed it one of his accomplishments. If he felt or feels it to be insufficiently "Republican," he is free to scorn it. If he had little or nothing to do with it or greatly opposed its particulars, then he's claiming credit for it under false pretenses.
There's evidence that Media Matters has directly inspired at least one person to attempt to assassinate people the MSM had identified as enemies. The things said about those "enemies" are often untrue on their face.
Shut down and RICO the MSM! And arrest Media Matters for hate-mongering and formenting violence.
Eponym and Bob Wright too. As evidence, I have an opinion piece from World Net Daily that indicts them both for radicalizing Moonbats like Eric Fuller.
/s
Where is the evidence that Scandinavian health care system guarantees results? I bet they do rationing like everyone else. Since that's the one cited by leftists as the GOLD standard of health care.
"Obamacare--it's manifest failings aside--is not a "socialist takeover" of healthcare."
Oh, I'm sorry, you're right. The government taking over a huge chunk of our economy and putting itself in a position to determine prices for services in that sector of the economy with the weight of law DOESN'T constitute a "socialist takeover". It is, after all, for our own good.
What's that you say? A definition of "socialist"? Feh. Nevermind. Save it for the two minutes' hate.
Remember when righties were all about an aim other than idiocy?
"Mmmm...that's nice, Shanna, but what about real health care? What if you were diagnosed with a life-threatening illness that required extensive hospitalization and costly treatment? What if your spouse or child were grievously injured in an accident and required extensive hospitalization and costly treatment?"
I can take this one. In that case, whatever doctor or hospital saw you first would be REQUIRED TO TREAT YOU OR YOUR FAMILY UNDER CURRENT LAW, payment be damned. Why do you think health care is so expensive? We're paying for deadbeats. Most of the time, that pisses me off. In this case it delights me, because it completely deflates any argument Obamacare supporters put out there about how horrible Americans are as a people and how we have a third-world health care system, etc.
The truth is, we have the best health care system in the world, as is evidenced by the richest members of every other society on earth choosing to come HERE to Mayo clinic (where my own family has gone) for critical procedures. My parents were both school teachers, and yet my sister was at Mayo to have half a lung removed because she has Cystic Fibrosis. Of course, that was probably because of the gold-plated benefits my folks enjoyed and still enjoy as former public employees, but anyone who can demonstrate need can get the same treatment, means to pay be damned. The docs are bound by their oath, after all, and from what I've seen they stick by that regardless of payment.
You, either purposefully or mistakenly, are falling prey to the MSM-sponsored myth that health insurance=health care. This is simply not the case. It never was and most likely never will be. It (currently) serves Obama's purposes for people to believe that, but that most definitely doesn't make it so.
Free speech has only been on the left for the "right" kind of speech from the "right" people.
Just one of those Orwellian head fakes, saying A and doing B.
"The point is, it's a false and crazy conspiracy theory that now has a history of causing someone who bought into it to try and murder people. Should Fox be allowing Beck to obsessively teach that false and nutty conspiracy theory?"
No, they shouldn't. As long as no media outlets are permitted in any way to advocate for the ideas of Karl Marx. If, as people have asserted, Beck has gotten people killed, then he has a VERY long way to go to catch up with Marx.
It never ceases to amaze me how Nazis are (understandably) not welcome among polite company, but Marxists are. Even a cursory examination of the historical record reveals Marxism has killed many more people than Nazism. And just as intentionally.
Robert Wright is not an 'honest liberal'.
Over the course of many Blogginghead episodes
I've noted how frequently he echoes Democrat Party talking points.
Where are these armies of free speech advocates on the right? For that matter, who are the institutional censors on the left?
Well as for the former (though they might dispute this characterization but they do generally support the "right of center" position on most issues) there's these guys
And as for the "institutional censors" on the left, well there's this.
And if I wanted to get "technical" I could say anyone who supported this. But that might include folks on the left and right. YMMV.
re: Matthew Shephard Hate Crimes legislation.
To be fair there was this disclaimer at the end of the bill:
FREE EXPRESSION- Nothing in this Act shall be construed to allow prosecution based solely upon an individual’s expression of racial, religious, political, or other beliefs or solely upon an individual’s membership in a group advocating or espousing such beliefs
However, it did seem that if a white man shot a black man and before the shooting said: "Die you M***therf***er" that would be one thing but if instead he said "Die you N***er M***therf***er" that would be another thing.
So speech did matter even though the act was the same.
"because the end was never freedom."
Yes, it was--but only for themselves, not their opponents.
As John Howard Lawson, a Communist and one of the Hollywood Ten, said to the others, "You believe in freedom of speech for communists because what they say is true. You do not believe in freedom of speech for fascists because what they say is a lie."
"1. is plainly, unambiguously false. The incident involving the Tides assassin is well documented."
I thought we were looking for lies told by Glenn Beck. Whether or not this is true, it's not a lie by Glenn Beck (or even a statement that might be a lie) that can be tested.
I'll renew my call for a specific lie by Glenn Beck (quoted in his own words) that I can research and prove or disprove. Asserting ad nauseuam that he's a habitual liar isn't very meaningful without at least one example. That would be a good first step in proving he's a liar. Of course, the "habitual" part would require some additional evidence.
"When I am weaker than you I ask you for freedom because that is according to your principles; when I am stronger than you I take away your freedom because that is according to mine" Frank Herbert
Upon further review, that was Herbert loosely quoting Louis Veuillot. I will be charged with a timeout.
which book?
"Freedom of Speech" isn't "Freedom of Speech that Isn't Offensive nor in Dispute".
There are laws against libel and slander and sedition. Obviously there are limitations on speech.
But that's not nearly the same as the notion that being right is the determining factor of who gets to speak or not. It's the old not tolerating intolerance thing which essentially means that the only person who's ideas deserve to be "tolerated" is the one who exhibits right thinking. Or the one where "offensive speech isn't free speech" where the only speech that is free is the speech that is acceptable.
And "tolerance" comes to mean "agreeing with me absolutely" and "free speech" comes to mean more or less the same thing. And we're supposed to be civil and not hurt anyone's feelings nor have any ideas that are contrary to the ideas we're supposed to have and shunning and ostracism should be used to shut up people who don't conform closely enough.
Much of the right has simply had enough of this and will stand no more, but watch and pay attention to the left and the efforts to coerce proper thought within that "tribe". It's appalling.
If that was directed at me, Fen, it was "Children of Dune." The quote is followed with something like "(Harq al Ada, attributed to an ancient philosopher)." Given that format, I assume this was one of the brief passages that opens each chapter. Those often have some very tasty nuggets in them.
I hate that Bob Wright's gimp Brenda has banned me from the forum. Bob Wright hates free speech. That jackass of a wuss is such a hypocrite. He'll call whoever he wants names, but don't dare question the competency of one his moderators.
What a little bastard.
Beck lying?
There's the claim that Soros collapses regimes? And his target now is America? He's made some variant on that many times.
(Soros backed the Czech revolution and supported Solidarity. He provided support for domocratic reform in Slovakia, Croatia, and Yugoslavia. There's no evidence he has any such plans for the US.)
Attempting to blur the Tides Foundation with Soros with the claim that he's a major funding source for them. (Soros provides about 5% of their funding.)
Tides is "behind it all...involved in the nasty of the nastiest." (Beck on the radio 9/29/09)
Beck was railing against the former New Black Panther Party Chairman Dr. Khallid Abdul Muhammad, who he showed in a clip saying: "Why kill the babies? They're just little innocent blue-eyed babies. (Expletive), they're going to grow up one day to rule your babies. Kill them now."
Beck then tied this to Tides, saying that liberal groups "are using failing capitalism to destroy it. They're using the churches through social justice. The media -- do I have to explain that one? This is what progressives and all power-seekers do. They find something vulnerable. They latch on to it. They exploit it for power."
He added that Tides "infiltrated" the education system, the media, and capitalism during the Reagan administration, but indicated that now that they're in power, liberal groups will not be able to disavow people like Muhammad: "When they are the ones holding the guns, sometimes it is hard to stop those who said, 'Yes, we can kill white babies.'
(July 13 2010 on his FOX show)
There's quite a bit of this, and anyone can it with a search engine and a small effort.
(The Crypto Jew)
Eponym, and from that scree, which are the Demonstrable lies?
There are things I might not agree with, but lies? Point them out, it's nmot difficult, I'd think...you have your quote(s) show which are lies...
And don't put in "Google it" or some variant of...the tule here is if you CLAIM it, you SHOW it....links needed.
Okay, Eponym. That may be crazy talk but how is it lying?
Soros doesn't give money or funding to conservative organizations. He gives to liberal ones.
Any liberal fund that is pushing education or funding it *is* working to indoctrinate children, get them while they are young. Read Ayers. It's not even a conspiracy. It's a published tactic.
And Piven. Why is it so horrible to point out that she thinks that riots where property is torched and people killed is just groovy? It's because she's supposed to be a low key educator, telling this crap to young people and maybe the choir at Mother Jones, but the rest of us aren't supposed to know this is what our children are being taught when we pony up the tuition for "higher" education.
That you don't LIKE something, doesn't make it a lie.
My feeling about "conspiracies" is that the attempt to put things into a frame of purposeful actions leading to intended consequences is *usually* a fantasy. But the process, the actions and the consequences of the actions, don't necessarily need people plotting to have it happen.
The *lack* of plotters does not make either the actions nor the consequences a lie.
And Soros quite clearly is involved in and trying to influence politics.
To say that he's not trying to over throw our government is absurd, but the claim that he's not involved is every bit as absurd.
Is he just throwing his money away because it's fun?
To say that he *is* trying to over throw our government is absurd.
When were the lefties all in favor of free speech. They have never been. They have been in favor of free speech they can fight against but when they are losing the battle of ideas, they suddenly are against free speech, at least that particular free speech. Remember that it was the left with the PC speech codes that really started this whole thing and in many cases they still are against free speech. Remember that the university of your home state of Delaware was in favor of speech codes last year.
The problem is that you are in favor free speech and you were a leftie then, not so much now, so you and your buds were indeed in favor of free speech but your crew were outliers. Look at the way Bob Wright came charging in when you came out in favor of free speech in this BH episode.
"To say that he *is* trying to over throw our government is absurd."
Heh.
Andrew,
The left were trying to get the Fox reporter who would have taken Helen Thomas's seat at the presidential press conferences kicked out. The administration has tried to exclude Fox News from their press plane that travels with the president. Obama himself has spoken out against Fox News. The staff of the Obama campaign refused to debate on Fox and tried to exclude them. Can't get much more prominent leftist than the admin spokesmen and the president.
Because "over throw" is sort of hyperbolic.
Influence? Form into what he wants it to be? Sure. Else why else is he spending his money?
But that's why it's really *willful* stupidity to rant on about how Beck is lying about Soros and then claiming confidence about Soros's private thoughts.
THANK YOU for the post, and for raising the question.
Much of the right has simply had enough of this and will stand no more, but watch and pay attention to the left and the efforts to coerce proper thought within that "tribe". It's appalling.
Synova, right on. So many good comments and points. A flicker of light within the void!
Cook,
The Mass Health care plan was drafted by the Dem majority in the state legislatures and handed to Romney as a fait accompli and he was told either he signed it or the legislatures would override his veto. He signed it as the lesser of two evils. He did not write it. Then he tried to work with it to make it successful. Now that he is no longer in office there it has gone hog wild in the cost and the current admin and legislature is stuck trying to find a way to save it and also pay for it. In no way should the national HCR take anything from the Mass plan.
Synova:
But that's why it's really *willful* stupidity to rant on about how Beck is lying about Soros and then claiming confidence about Soros's private thoughts.
Yup. But how, exactly is that an accurate characterization of any actual person's position?
You don't need to read anybody's mind to show that the claim "Soros 'collapses regimes'" and "his target now is America" is a lie. There's no evidence of the first part, unless you're willing to conflate opposition to Milosovic, e.g. with "collapsing regimes;" and the second part is a mind-reading claim, on Beck's part.
Demonizing Soros, then exaggerating the relationship bewtween Tides and Soros is clearly a lie.
The attempt to manufacture a relationship between Tides and Khallid Abdul Muhammad is baseless fantasy. (Though I see my blockquoting didn't work, so the grafs relevant to that point might not seem clearly tied together.)
Soros funds the Tides Foundation. The Tides Foundation pushes a left-wing environmental agenda in schools and churches in this country. Those are facts.
Beck believes that Tides educational offerings amount to left-wing indoctrination and are a bad thing for this country. That's his opinion.
You may disagree and think that Soros and Tides do wonderful things, but Beck has every right to speak out against them.
If you don't like it, move someplace where they don't have free speech.
@Lyle:
Haha.
That is all.
Most people don't know anything about Tides and what it does - and how it works - nor how much money it gets and where it comes from - Beck and his guys do their research.
You may not like his schtick, but stop and pay attention to the research that goes in to his show - it's no small feat. It is an enormously complex subject - and his schtick is the only possible way to get people to listen and sort of grok the connections and the institutional memory aspect of it all.
The beauty of Beck is - he get them with THEIR OEN WORDS time and time again - and they hate it. Like him or not, don't discount the facts he brings to light.
And if you wanna know more about Tides - visit http://activistcash.com/ and Discover The Networks.
Here's a shortcut: Tides Foundation & Tides Center ...Tides does two things better than any other foundation or charity in the U.S. today: it routinely obscures the sources of its tax-exempt millions, and makes it difficult (if not impossible) to discern how the funds are actually being used....
It's worth learning how they manipulate you - and take advantage of your goodness and high ideals.
Err, OWN words. Dang typos.
Metasailor said:
"So, whether or not you agree with what the "Leftist" says, it is not logical OR fair to suggest said "Leftist" is trying to shut down free speech when said "Leftist" criticizes someone. Or even when said "Leftist" says the someone should face free-market-based repercussions for their statements."
Beck is facing the free-market-based repercussions for his statements: advertisers pay big bucks to advertise on his show. That's the repercussion in the free market: people like what he says, they listen to him, and the advertiser gets exposure to his products. Advocating for any other basis to shut him down is not free-market based.
Byron Williams' own, unambiguous words on the matter of whether or not he was "inspired" or "incited" to violence by Beck have been referenced right here, on this very thread, no fewer than four separate times now, since initially cited by YoungHegelian:
http://www.examiner.com/sf-in-san-francisco/freeway-gunman-byron-williams-says-glenn-beck-did-not-incite-him-to-violence
As of this writing, not one leftist has made even a rudimentary, half-hearted attempt at dealing with this absolute demolition of their own mulish core assertion, re: this whole silly Beck-Is-the-Dark-Spawn-of-C'Thulhu rigamarole.
Said silence, on their part, is as damning as it is side-splittingly, falling-down hysterical.
Wright thinks the proles are idiots and need to be lead and can only be presented safe ideas. Much like the medieval church. We're all sheeple in Wright's world and I don't see why you bother with him.
I'm a conservative who is for free speech. I will defend your right to say it with my life. 26 years of Army service is my proof.
garage cracks me up whining about Rush targetting leftwinger website as "hate" sights as he is hoist on the leftwing censorship petard of "hate speech" tactic which is nothing more that speech the left doesn't like.
It was fine when Rush is called a hate monger but when leftwingers like Francis Piven are called out on their very consistent and vocal calls for revolutionary violence to change our government, the left tries to call quoting someones words accurately an "incitement to violence".
The left is ever trying to delegitimise the speech of the opposition in order to marginalise them and make their ideas appear toxic thru guilt by association; if you say "X" you are a hater, bigot, homophobe, racist. They call voicing opposition to their anti-American, Anti-Liberty agenda "hate speech".
Leftwingers need to take responsibility for their calls to actual revolutionary violence, as opposed to the imaginary ones with which they fraudulently impugn conservatives and conservatism.
History shows, with a string of actual violent revolutions carried out, complete with Gulags and mass executions, that leftwingers always resort to violence to achieve their ends when they think they can get away with it.
I took an oath to shoot people like Francis Piven and her radical husband should they try to act out their calls to revolutionary violence. But, until they do, they have every right to say what they say.
So, garage and Eponym: fuck you, you totalitarian bigots. But keep spewing your pro-censorship tactics as they only expose you and people like you for what you are. You have the complete right to do so.
Eponym said...
"You don't need to read anybody's mind to show that the claim "Soros 'collapses regimes'" and "his target now is America" is a lie".
Is this really the best you have? Soros has admitted that he helped Solidarity--which did overthrow the Polish Communist regime. His role in the break-up of Czechoslovakia is also well documented. That these were laudable efforts doesn't make it a lie.
Whether his target is now America is not known to anyone except Soros.
The claim that Beck lies strikes me as further from the truth than any examples you have presented of Beck's truthfulness.
Who says the left is opposed to free speech? You have a Constitutional right to be a fool.
You don't have a Constitutional right that requires me to suffer your foolishness.
Can't tell the difference between free speech and a mandatory audience, eh?
"The Democrats claimed that ObamaCare would lower overall health care costs. This has not happened and there is no known way in which it COULD happen; it goes against basic economic principles of supply and demand."
The law hasn't taken effect yet. The known way that health care lowers health care costs is when good health care is provided early, instead of trying to remediate 50 years of bad health care in the emergency room, 100 days before the person will die.
Saying that Obamacare can't lower health care costs is like saying that aircraft maintenance can't prevent air accidents nor prolong the life of airplanes.
Alex: Cook - who can read a 2000 page bill drafted by lawyers who specialize on obfuscation?
Anyone with an 8th grade education.
The question is, why didn't you read it?
Anyone with an 8th grade education.
The question is, why didn't you read it?
Since when is it MY job to read a 2000 page bill? I find it offensive to say the least that it was designed to be so large and obtuse that it requires a team of lawyers to parse. So I rely on my Congresscritter to tell me if it's any good. He said - no it's bad!
It's been your job since you became a citizen. If you are.
Why complain about others not reading the bill when you don't?
"Can't tell the difference between free speech and a mandatory audience, eh"
Dude what a load of bullshit. Beck doesn't have a mandatory audience. He grew it on his own. That's why the likes of Fraziers brother want to shut him down and get him fired. They don't want anyone else to be able to present an alternative.
What a load of bullshit you guys keep passing.
SRSLY? The American left as anti-free-speech brownshirts? Do you really want to try to sell that with a straight face?
So now the ACLU are conservative icons? They've legally defended people whose sole mission is to destroy the ACLU itself: it just doesn't get more pro-free-speech than that.
I guess FOX NEWS must be leftists, too. Their propensity for killing someone's mic on-air (not for swearing, but for saying the wrong things) is the stuff of legend, & so too is their morphing of newly indicted/convicted Republicans into Instant Democrats™ (just add "D" & mix!). They even shooped pictures of Dems to make them look demonic &/or idiotic (straight out of the playbook of the old TASS News Agency, though their airbrush technique was shamefully second-rate).
Yes, the American left's advocacy for Assange (for example) must indicate their love for repression. Or is it just their deep hatred of America? Funny - you'd think in 2011 real America-haters would just let it continue to polarize & decline, perhaps occasionally popping popcorn or pointing & laughing.
Also, free speech cannot include advocating removing a media clown from his lofty position when it's obvious that his allergy to reality is both massively contagious & socially toxic. The undeniable nonexistence of any inherent "right" to having his own program on television or radio from which to spread said allergy to reality is surely central to someone's point.
Needless to say, the heretical concept of free speech coming with tangible responsibilities, such as a need to be an actual adult about how one uses it, or having limits imposed by society via informal means upon the abrogation of same, is beyond the pale of "respectable discourse" in modern fora.
PS: I'm sure the REAL institutionalized chilling-effect upon free speech from things like the government monitoring everything from library cards to e-mails to phone calls in the wake of the draconian Patriot Act was harshly condemned in 2001 by every single concern-troll who is now in dire need of a hugbox from all those horrible evil lefty censorship-fetishists, right?
Post a Comment