(fairness act) conspiracy theories and free speech

[Texicannibus]

Well first of all Pearl you seem to be referring to campaign financing and lobbies. I have addressed this previously in other areas but yes they are covered by free speech. Just because someone has more money and influence than someone else does not give one the right to gag their speech. The consitution is not about group rights it's about individual rights. The cooperations are made up of individuals that have the right to free speech.

Want to make note that I am totally against bribes, payoffs, and 'special deals'.

Campaign financing is not a bribe. Do you feel that you should be told if or how much you can contribute to a politician that supports your opinion and positions? You really think that Obama is bending to BP's will because they donated a large sum to his election? I think its rather obvious he is not since they was sheltered to 100 million liability and chose to pay 20 billion to his administration as a 'starter payment' for them to dole out. I wonder do you feel unions also should not be able to donate to political parties or canidates?

 

[Greensub]

LOL equipment... They are regulated on a federal level. UL standards and all.. jeez some people are just to dense to have a discussion with. Anyhow tell me how I was wrong. Since I see this all the time and Ive yet to see the Federal goverment swoop in...

I've done electrical in Arizona and someone needs to "swoop in"

You were wrong in treating with derision the idea that there's "national Standard"... there clearly is, I've personally worked with it (yes, it does exist) and then you attempted to make me feel stupid for thinking that.

Some states are really lax in accepting new standards and stay on old ones for way to long. I've seen it time and again (just a fire waiting to happen)

One of the reason's I pushed you on some of these issues is that doing so tells how much I should trust your opinion on the OP. (I haven't researched it as much as I would like, I thought maybe you had a good point, I'm starting to wonder now) If you can't answer a couple question's easily and without calling someone dense, why should I believe anything you have to say. You've accused me of falling for fear tactics over Libertarian's... but I generally see you on here spreading fear tactics concerning Progressives.

 

[Greensub]

Campaign financing is not a bribe. Do you feel that you should be told if or how much you can contribute to a politician that supports your opinion and positions?

Maybe... If I get to actually hear everyone who is running's opinion for once maybe we can get somewhere with our government. I'm not 100% sure how it should be reformed... that's something that we as a nation need to decide... I think the constitution is defective in this sense (THERE I SAID IT... sorry, mark levin reference).

You really think that Obama is bending to BP's will because they donated a large sum to his election? I think its rather obvious he is not since they was sheltered to 100 million liability and chose to pay 20 billion to his administration as a 'starter payment' for them to dole out.

I was referring to Bush and his and Cheney's "regulation" & "oversight" or lack thereof for the last ten years. And all the political appointees bush turned into civil servants so they couldn't be fired that have stayed in these agencies.

I wonder do you feel unions also should not be able to donate to political parties or canidates?

as I said... not 100% sure exactly what should be done (just know there is an obvious problem). If corporations and individuals are out than so are unions. There must be some way to hear candidates ideas other than making it a question of having the money to run.

This is a sticky, complex question, but one that's very important and as important as anything we discuss in this country.

 

[Texicannibus]

I've done electrical in Arizona and someone needs to "swoop in"

You were wrong in treating with derision the idea that there's "national Standard"... there clearly is, I've personally worked with it (yes, it does exist) and then you attempted to make me feel stupid for thinking that.

Some states are really lax in accepting new standards and stay on old ones for way to long. I've seen it time and again (just a fire waiting to happen)

One of the reason's I pushed you on some of these issues is that doing so tells how much I should trust your opinion on the OP. (I haven't researched it as much as I would like, I thought maybe you had a good point, I'm starting to wonder now) If you can't answer a couple question's easily and without calling someone dense, why should I believe anything you have to say. You've accused me of falling for fear tactics over Libertarian's... but I generally see you on here spreading fear tactics concerning Progressives.

Can you please show me where progressives have been brought in this thread besides your posts. You can use any excuse you like for trying to derail the thread. If you wanted to see how much merit the post had all you needed to do was check the resources. It's relatively obvious that your a political hack trying to turn this into a partisan argument.

Sorry I wont fall for it if you believe you proved me wrong feel free. I think its rather obvious you was wrong your own post showed it wasnt a law. Your post shows its enforced by city and states if it is enforced at all. The next time you see a fire call the feds not 911.,.. tell them your trying to reach the National fire association.. LOL yea your not dense...

 

[Greensub]

Can you please show me where progressives have been brought in this thread besides your posts.

True... I apologize for that... I've just noticed that your progressives = legalization thread was removed, I was assuming you were blaming the "fairness act" on progressives.

You can use any excuse you like for trying to derail the thread.

didn't really mean to derail the thread... I was responding to remarks already made in the thread.

If you wanted to see how much merit the post had all you needed to do was check the resources.

I did... at the beginning... I think I was the second person to agree with you that what you posted was troublesome.

here's my earlier post...

ME...
Even though I hated those emails going around (one of them that I got had all the pages of the health care act notated where they said problems were, and I looked it up and checked every one and 99% of what they alleged were misleading if not outright lies about the bill) but nevertheless I'm in complete agreement with Texicannibus on this (and we've disagreed in the past)

Hi again Texi (we argued in the progressives thread you started)

It's relatively obvious that your a political hack trying to turn this into a partisan argument.

I didn't even know what a progressive was until we argued in the progressives thread. (you kind of drove me that way with your arguments, I would have been more likely to identify as a libertarian until then)

Sorry I wont fall for it if you believe you proved me wrong feel free. I think its rather obvious you was wrong your own post showed it wasnt a law.

Who said it was a law??? not me, you said there were no "national standards"... but digging deeper it isn't a federal law, it is a part of ANSI (american national safety institute) which you are correct is a private non-profit association although there are federal government agencies that are included as members.

Your post shows its enforced by city and states if it is enforced at all. The next time you see a fire call the feds not 911.,.. tell them your trying to reach the National fire association.. LOL yea your not dense...

So I'll take a draw on this one... there are national standards as I said, but there is no "federal" standard as you've said.

That being said I've seen things built that should not have been built that way, they're just fire traps waiting to happen. Maybe we need the feds to instate new code every 3 years when it comes out rather than letting things slide locally until there's a problem.

I'll look into the fairness act more (you didn't leave any links for that for us to do research) and try to restrict my comments to that. I just listen to a lot of right wing talk radio during the day and never call in to argue, so when I see some similar things said here where I can respond, I do.

 

[Greensub]

Obama oposses fairness doctrine

Obama oposses fairness doctrine

In June 2008, Barack Obama's press secretary wrote that Obama (then a Democratic U.S. Senator from Illinois and candidate for President):
<table style="border-style: none; margin: auto; border-collapse: collapse; background-color: transparent; width: auto;" class="cquote"> <tbody><tr> <td style="padding: 10px; color: rgb(178, 183, 242); font-size: 35px; font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-weight: bold; text-align: left;" valign="top" width="20">“</td> <td style="padding: 4px 10px;" valign="top">Does not support reimposing the Fairness Doctrine on broadcasters ... [and] considers this debate to be a distraction from the conversation we should be having about opening up the airwaves and modern communications to as many diverse viewpoints as possible. That is why Sen. Obama supports media-ownership caps, network neutrality, public broadcasting, as well as increasing minority ownership of broadcasting and print outlets.<sup id="cite_ref-37" class="reference">[38]</sup></td> <td style="padding: 10px; color: rgb(178, 183, 242); font-size: 36px; font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-weight: bold; text-align: right;" valign="bottom" width="20">”</td> </tr> </tbody></table> In February 2009, a White House spokesperson said that President Obama continues to oppose the revival of the Doctrine.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine#cite_note-38

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine#cite_note-38

That's relevant right? That's from Fox news via Wiki.

Public opinion

In an August 13, 2008, telephone poll released by Rasmussen Reports, 47% of 1,000 likely voters supported a government requirement that broadcasters offer equal amounts of liberal and conservative commentary, while 39% opposed such a requirement. In the same poll, 57% opposed and 31% favored requiring Internet web sites and bloggers that offer political commentary to present opposing points of view. By a margin of 71%-20% the respondents agreed that it is "possible for just about any political view to be heard in today’s media" (including the Internet, newspapers, cable TV and satellite radio), but only half the sample said they had followed recent news stories about the Fairness Doctrine closely. (The margin of error had a 95% chance of being within ± 3%.)

Is the "Fairness Act" you are refering to the "Fairness Doctrine" as was once imposed by the FCC??? or the "Civil Justice Fairness Act" that President Clinton vetoed? Or the "Paycheck Fairness Act"? Or is this completely new proposed legislation? I'm assuming you're referring to the fairness doctrine.


I've been reading about the internet radio fairness act also... but that doesn't seem relevant to the conversation.


I just don't see a lot of people pushing to re-instate the Fairness Doctrine right now, it's kind of a dead issue. Obviously the one guy you quoted is in favor of it. President Obama isn't supportive of it according to FOX news, he's quoted twice as saying he's against it.

 

[Texicannibus]

He said he didnt support it because it didnt go far enough... should research more. You need to read the first post again. They have decided to abandon the fairness doctrine. They are working on using regulation to enforce it.

Since you seem to imply you like doing research do as I did and read the paper written by your pal that shares your view on the constitution. The paper is called 'conspiracy theories' by Cass sunstein and someone else. Hes the head of figuring out how to apply and enforce laws as well as how to decipher them. Hes the current regulatory czar. See if you can figure out how that paper shows free speech for just about any opinion could be under attack but especially opinions that could be 'dangerous'. Surely your capable of understanding that Cannabis = Medicine might be considered dangerous in the mind of someone like Cass Sunstein?

 

[Greensub]

He said he didnt support it because it didnt go far enough... should research more. You need to read the first post again. They have decided to abandon the fairness doctrine. They are working on using regulation to enforce it.

When did Obama say it doesn't go far enough? A link please? I think FOX news would have included that little tidbit

<!-- /user-interaction --> President Obama opposes any move to bring back the so-called Fairness Doctrine, a spokesman told FOXNews.com Wednesday.
The statement is the first definitive stance the administration has taken since an aide told an industry publication last summer that Obama opposes the doctrine -- a long-abolished policy that would require broadcasters to provide opposing viewpoints on controversial issues.
"As the president stated during the campaign, he does not believe the Fairness Doctrine should be reinstated," White House spokesman Ben LaBolt told FOXNews.com.
That was after both senior adviser David Axelrod and White House press secretary Robert Gibbs left open the door on whether Obama would support reinstating the doctrine.

"I'm going to leave that issue to Julius Genachowski, our new head of the FCC ... and the president to discuss. So I don't have an answer for you now," Axelrod told FOX News Sunday over the weekend when asked about the president's position. The debate over the so-called Fairness Doctrine has heated up in recent days as prominent Democratic senators have called for the policies to be reinstated. Conservative talk show hosts, who see the doctrine as an attempt to impose liberal viewpoints on their shows, largely oppose any move to bring it back.
Fueling discussion, a report in the American Spectator this week said aides to Democratic Rep. Henry Waxman, Calif., met last week with staff for the Federal Communications Commission to discuss ways to enact Fairness Doctrine policies. The report said Waxman was also interested in applying those standards to the Internet
, which drew ridicule from supporters and opponents of the doctrine.

Both the FCC and Waxman's office denied the report.

The Fairness Doctrine was adopted in 1949 and held that broadcasters were obligated to provide opposing points of views on controversial issues of national importance. It was halted under the Reagan administration.
FOXNews.com's Judson Berger contributed to this report.

Since you seem to imply you like doing research do as I did and read the paper written by your pal that shares your view on the constitution. The paper is called 'conspiracy theories' by Cass sunstein and someone else. Hes the head of figuring out how to apply and enforce laws as well as how to decipher them. Hes the current regulatory czar. See if you can figure out how that paper shows free speech for just about any opinion could be under attack but especially opinions that could be 'dangerous'. Surely your capable of understanding that Cannabis = Medicine might be considered dangerous in the mind of someone like Cass Sunstein?

Actually I'd like to see the text of the "Fairness Act" the OP is about... I still haven't been able to find the legislation anywhere online. I did find the DISCLOSE (Democracy is Strengthened by Casting Light on Spending in Elections Act)... that's what DISCLOSE actually stands for.

It wasn't clear in your OP what the DISCLOSE Act does, it wasn't until I found out more that I realized a lot of what I've been talking about isn't off-track at all. The DISCLOSE Act (which you brought up) is all about Campaign Finance Reform.

I've read the congressional summary so far: (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h111-5175)

SEC. 105. RESTRICTION ON INTERNET COMMUNICATIONS TREATED AS PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS.

(a) In General- Section 301(22) of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 431(22)) is amended by adding at the end the following new sentence: ‘A communication which is disseminated through the Internet shall not be treated as a form of general public political advertising under this paragraph unless the communication was placed for a fee on another person’s Web site.’.

This was the only reference to the internet in there that I've seen so far (maybe I missed something else?)

Anyways I'm going to read the actual text of the bill to understand it better, but so far I really like it. I'm trying to look for something that will make me say A-HA! They're screwing us... so far the biggest problem seems to be the exemption of the NRA from the Act.

Here's a link to the page with text & summary links.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-5175

as far as Cass Sunstein... I did read a bit of it and I posted it way earlier.

<table id="post3624903" class="tborder" align="center" border="0" cellpadding="4" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td class="alt1" id="td_post_3624903" style="border-right: 1px solid;"> Well... I went and looked up page 14 (and a bit after that, that was relevant)

Quote:
<table border="0" cellpadding="4" cellspacing="0" width="100%"> <tbody><tr> <td class="alt2" style="border: 1px inset;"> II. Governmental Responses
What can government do about conspiracy theories? Among the things it can do,
what should it do? We can readily imagine a series of possible responses. (1)
Government might ban conspiracy theorizing. (2) Government might impose some kind
of tax, financial or otherwise, on those who disseminate such theories. (3) Government
might itself engage in counterspeech, marshaling arguments to discredit conspiracy
theories. (4) Government might formally hire credible private parties to engage in
counterspeech. (5) Government might engage in informal communication with such
parties, encouraging them to help. Each instrument has a distinctive set of potential
effects, or costs and benefits, and each will have a place under imaginable conditions.
However, our main policy idea is that government should engage in cognitive infiltration
of the groups that produce conspiracy theories, which involves a mix of (3), (4) and (5). </td> </tr> </tbody></table>
He does say all 5 would have a place under imaginable conditions (what are imaginable conditions?)... he does say that the main gist of what he advocates is 3, 4, & 5.

As far as application of these ideas towards the idea of cannibus... NIDA pretty much fits the description of counterspeech except in that case the government is disseminating the conspiracy theory and we're providing the counterspeech.
<!-- / message --> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="alt2" style="border-style: none solid solid; border-color: -moz-use-text-color; border-width: 0px 1px 1px;">

<script type="text/javascript"> vbrep_register("3</script>

</td> <td class="alt1" style="border-style: none solid solid none; border-color: -moz-use-text-color; border-width: 0px 1px 1px 0px;" align="right"> <!-- controls -->

</td><td class="alt2" style="border-style: none solid solid; border-color: -moz-use-text-color; border-width: 0px 1px 1px;">

</td></tr></tbody></table>

 

[Texicannibus]

Fairness Doctrine 2.0 (part of it)

From Kelly William Cobb on Wednesday, May 19, 2010 5:39 PM​

Read more: http://atr.org/fairness-doctrine-point-nudging-read-online-a4958##ixzz0sD3p3aKM​

The Fairness Doctrine was a rule abandoned in 1987 that required broadcasters to give equal time to opposing points of view. While the stated goal was to expand discourse in the name of the “public interest,” the policy trampled all over basic property and First Amendment rights. It has been pushed in recent years primarily as a means of silencing prominent talk show hosts that don’t share the same political views as the politicians in charge.

Despite President Obama’s statements in opposition to reinstituting the Fairness Doctrine (at least on broadcasters), it appears his regulatory czar, Cass Sunstein, holds a different take when it comes to the Internet. An uncovered clip from a radio program has found Sunstein declaring:
“Sites from one point of view agree to provide links to other sites so if you are reading a conservative magazine they would provide a link to a liberal site and vice versa…If we could get voluntary arrangements in that direction it would be great. …But the word ‘voluntary’ is a little complicated. Sometimes people don’t do what’s best for our society… And the idea would be to have a legal mandate as the last resort and to make sure it’s as neutral as possible…”​

This in effect would entail heavy regulation and enforcement of all content on the Internet, and would be a gross violation of property and First Amendment rights. And why should anyone blindly assume government bureaucrats are neutral enforcers? In effect, this is the Fairness Doctrine for the Internet.
The new push for Net Neutrality centers on subjecting Internet access to Title II of the Communications Act, thereby applying a vague rule preventing “discrimination” to allow the government to manage the way service providers run their networks. By simply tossing the content side of the Internet under Title II as well, one can imagine how this same rule can result in Fairness Doctrine 2.0.
Sunstein’s suggestion should come as no surprise. He recently co-authored the book Nudge, which argues that policies should be designed to “nudge” people into making better choices without full-on coercion. Sunstein says he opposes outright bans or mandates, but if you aren’t forced to read the story, someone will certainly be mandated to put it in front of you. There also appears to be quite a slippery slope (which prompted a fantastic discussion in the Cato Unbound blog last month) from Sunstein’s oxymoronic term “libertarian paternalism” (or “nudging”) to hard paternalism with heavy government involvement.
Yet, for posterity’s sake, here is an absurdly false editorial from Free Press on Huffington Post about why all of Congress supports Net Neutrality. And here is a more reasoned post about why Congress largely opposes it. Now, I think Free Press should be “nudged” into displaying my article about why Net Neutrality is a government takeover. And if they don’t maybe Cass Sunstein can help mandate it.​

Read more: http://atr.org/fairness-doctrine-point-nudging-read-online-a4958##ixzz0sD48IdXA​

http://www.broadcastingcable.com/ar...s_Not_Support_Return_of_Fairness_Doctrine.php​

There may be some Democrats talking about reimposing the Fairness Doctrine, but one very important one does not: presumptive presidential nominee Barack Obama.

​

By John Eggerton -- Broadcasting & Cable, 6/25/2008 8:25:00 PM

Related: Complete Election 2008 Coverage
There may be some Democrats talking about reimposing the Fairness Doctrine, but one very important one does not: presumptive presidential nominee Barack Obama.

The Illinois senator’s top aide said the issue continues to be used as a distraction from more pressing media business.
"Sen. Obama does not support reimposing the Fairness Doctrine on broadcasters," press secretary Michael Ortiz said in an e-mail to B&C late Wednesday.
"He considers this debate to be a distraction from the conversation we should be having about opening up the airwaves and modern communications to as many diverse viewpoints as possible," Ortiz added. "That is why Sen. Obama supports media-ownership caps, network neutrality, public broadcasting, as well as increasing minority ownership of broadcasting and print outlets."
The Fairness Doctrine issue flared up in recent days after reports that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) was talking about a Democratic push to reinstate it, although it was unclear at press time whether that was a new pledge or the restating of a long-held position.
Conservative paper Human Events reported that Pelosi was not planning to bring to a vote a bill to block the reimposition of the doctrine.
The paper went on to say that Pelosi “added that ‘the interest in my caucus is the reverse’ and that New York Democratic Rep. ‘Louise Slaughter has been active behind this [revival of the Fairness Doctrine] for a while now.’”
But it was unclear whether Pelosi was talking about a push, or simply restating her long-held view that the doctrine should return​

 

[Greensub]

Hi Again,

Sorry I was gone so long... my fiance was in the hospital and I was too busy to look at this.

Here's a useful link to information about Net Neutrality and what's been going on with the FCC. Check all the links halfway down.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100...26583645448758.html?mod=WSJ_hps_LEFTWhatsNews

Here's the full text of the FCC statement.

http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-297944A1.pdf

The Broadband Policy Agenda
Consistent with this consensus view of the FCC’s role, Congress last year directed the FCC to develop
America’s first National Broadband Plan, which we delivered in March. And I have described over the
past months the policy initiatives I believe are of crucial importance to our global competiveness, job
creation, and broad opportunity. These include:
· Extending broadband communications to all Americans, in rural and urban America and in
between, by transforming the $9 billion Universal Service Fund from supporting legacy telephone
service to supporting broadband communications service;
· Protecting consumers and promoting healthy competition by, for example, providing greater
transparency regarding the speeds, services, and prices consumers receive, and ensuring that
consumers—individuals as well as small businesses—are treated honestly and fairly;
· Empowering consumers to take control of their personal information so that they can use
broadband communications without unknowingly sacrificing their privacy;
· Lowering the costs of investment—for example, through smart policies relating to rights-of way—
in order to accelerate and extend broadband deployment;
· Advancing the critical goals of protecting Americans against cyber-attacks, extending 911
coverage to broadband communications, and otherwise protecting the public’s safety; and
· Working to preserve the freedom and openness of the Internet through high-level rules of the road
to safeguard consumers’ right to connect with whomever they want; speak freely online; access
the lawful products and services of their choice; and safeguard the Internet’s boundless promise
as a platform for innovation and communication to improve our education and health care, and
help deliver a clean energy future.
At the same time, I have been clear about what the FCC should not do in the area of broadband
communications: For example, FCC policies should not include regulating Internet content, constraining
reasonable network management practices of broadband providers, or stifling new business models or
managed services that are pro-consumer and foster innovation and competition. FCC policies should also
recognize and accommodate differences between management of wired networks and wireless networks,
3
including the unique congestion issues posed by spectrum-based communications. The Internet has
flourished and must continue to flourish because of innovation and investment throughout the broadband
ecosystem: at the core of the network, at its edge, and in the cloud.
These policies reflect an essential underlying regulatory philosophy:
· A strong belief in the free market and in private investment as essential and powerful engines of
economic growth;
· An embrace of the view that a healthy return on investment is a necessary and desirable incentive
to risk-taking and deployment of capital;
· A recognition of the powerful role entrepreneurs, innovators, startups and small businesses must
play in fueling American economic success; and
· An understanding that government has a vital but limited role in advancing common goals, for
example by helping tackle core infrastructure and public safety challenges; providing basic rules
of the road to enable markets to work fairly; acting in a properly calibrated way when necessary
to protect consumers and promote competition, investment, and innovation—and otherwise
getting out of the way of the entrepreneurial genius and free market that is America’s greatest
competitive advantage.

I read the whole thing and didn't find anything objectionable... so I understand now that there is no "Fairness Doctrine 2.0" other than in the mind of that writer you linked to. The actual fairness doctrine is not coming back.

As far as Cass Sunstein... here's the link to the interview.

http://www.breitbart.tv/uncovered-a...for-legally-controlling-internet-information/

Yes, I agree it's troubling... however as he says, the only way this would happen is for it to be done in congress, and then it would have to be approved by the president. This has nothing to do with net-neutrality. But ya... the guy has some weird ideas although the example he brings up is pretty benign, but I hate pop-ups.

 

[makedadproud]

I don't want to get off topic, but I have to question the validity of anything coming from a site owned by Alex Jones. He's a shill, a disinformation agent, and he may be well researched, but he does not include all the facts, only the ones that make his point plausible. You can't even post on his site now without an ID and if you are caught (in comments to his articles) disagreeing with him or using terms he doesn't want you to use (i.e. Knights of Malta), he will ban your IP from commenting.

Alex Jones = FAIL


Other than that, yeah, you're right. The government is doing whatever it can to see itself continue well into the future, and the only way to do that is by closing doors to the people.

 

[Power Tech]

Very informed and insightful crowd.

I see the Oligarchy. The few run the many.

They both have coffee and talk how you take this side and I will take that side.

They both end up at the same place and do the same thing.

It is a big con job. They have learned how to keep their puppets in office, what makes us tick, buy, sell, vote.

And when they poke or shackle us money flies out. Just like in the Roman days.

 

[trichrider]

They say one thing, the next minute they do something different.
http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/6630507.html
…then:
http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/publications/policy/ndcs10/ndcs2010.pdf
I would call that counterspeech. Its been going on forever.

Yeah to trust our government they would have to pay me…

“Another $16 billion would extend for six months increased Medicaid payments to the states. That would free up money for states to meet other budget priorities, including keeping more than 150,000 police officers and other public workers on the payroll.”

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/08/10/house-approves-billion-teacher-bailout/

Yeah, I can see them taxing speech, and thought and all else that makes living tolerable in these United States. They are about to institute the largest tax hikes in history to support that loathsome beast Debt. (banks)
http://www.atr.org/six-months-untilbr-largest-tax-hikes-a5171##ixzz0sY8waPq1

And that is not the end of bad news either. Wait till property values fall the estimated 60%, the high percentage of business failures due this increase, and the devaluation of the dollar, (Inflation will be astronomical) all falling together on top of unemployment in this DEPRESSION!!! (If you do not agree that this is a depression, at least let me think so).

This will be where Obama and Company take the leap with the second Amendment to the Constitution.
They are going to try to take guns out of the hands of citizens, using the UN protocols.
Where did you think this N.W.O. was heading?

Now that most of you think I am a total Lunatic…I’ll try to tie these together.

They say one thing and do another…Pass $26. Billion in State aid…keep 150,000 police on the dole, all while saying it’s for education! Then raise taxes and wait for the revolt, which is quickly quelled, and blame the revolution on guns and ban them. Crowd under control.

“If the American people ever allow the banks to control the issuance of their currency the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property, until their children wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.”
Thomas Jefferson

 

[JCJ]

R.I.P William Cooper....he was killed after predicting 9/11...theres a video on youtube you have to see to believe..."The most dangerous 911 video ever"

 

[Hydrosun]

Well first of all Pearl you seem to be referring to campaign financing and lobbies. I have addressed this previously in other areas but yes they are covered by free speech. Just because someone has more money and influence than someone else does not give one the right to gag their speech. The consitution is not about group rights it's about individual rights. The cooperations are made up of individuals that have the right to free speech.

Want to make note that I am totally against bribes, payoffs, and 'special deals'.

The first amendment also speaks to not infringing on our rights to FREE ASSOCIATION, ergo the lobbying groups are free to spend their money as they see fit.

The only thing that makes bribes, payoffs, and 'special deals' possible is governments bloated size and immoral usurpation of rights and liberties.

You asked us to be introspective, I'd like the group to think about the rightness and size of government. I postulate this: If it is RIGHT and NATURAL that big government provide and protect the individual, then why through out the course of human history has government been the source of persecution not protection?

I submit that we have all been feeding the beast for many decades and almost all political parties want to continue the immoral infringement on individual liberties. Government harms our liberties because the power of government is wielded by men. The only way I see to lessen the harm caused by government is to lessen the amount of government.

 

[Hydrosun]

Did Buffet invest at the expense of those who did not invest. If he never invested then what Buffet has would never have existed.

Wealth is created. Wealth is not finite. The man that discovered what could be done with oil did not still that wealth from the world. He turned useless sludge into gold with his mind.

At this point in history, this one particular man has had extreme PULL in the Ayn Rand sense. His inside deals with Goldman Sachs (which also PULLS from the treasury) during the ONE TRILLION dollar TARP theft, gave him access to a 'Special Deal' that the rest of us were not able to get; AND the US Tax payer financed.

The American People have been defrauded out of TRILLIONS of dollars and I'm sad to say Mr. Buffet has benefited directly from theft.

Not a conspiracy, Goldman got paid off 100% on AIG exposure (billions of dollars) other similarly situated creditors got the shaft. The US Gvt. backed the AIG take over and bailout for Goldman's bad positions.

Mr. Warren Buffet lent his name and reputation to Goldman in EXCHANGE for a 'Special Deal' and then the Goldman / Buffet combo RECEIVED / LOOTED more for the US Treasury than other institutions. Handing tax dollars to private corporation under the guise of national banking emergency is one of the ballsiest cons ever!

 

[Hydrosun]

Lastly Id like to submit a new subject in this larger framework to discuss. Would people here consider the muzzle put on military constiutional? Does it not violate the first ammendment? I have never been in the military so maybe they sign away this right? Hate speech is another way that free speech can easily be attacked. Remember you do not have to listen.

Freedom of speech does not apply to the work force. You're getting paid to be there so your boss doesn't have to let you spout off about this or that if they don't want to.

The military is a job, inside the executive department of the federal government.

All types of people can agree not to speak disparagingly about partners / employers / employees. These types of non-disclosure non-disparagement clauses exist in many contracts.

So I think it is fair to employers to fire employees who's speech they don't agree with.

I don't think a government job is a right.

I don't think we should have too many government jobs in this world.

I don't think it is right to censor people, but I strongly believe an employer has the right to employ at will.

So you should be able to be discharged out of the military for violating speech policies, but I disagree with any criminal sanction associated with free speech. Because even though one may contract away some constitutional rights one may NEVER be criminally penalized for exercising those rights.

 

[SpasticGramps]

The only thing that makes bribes, payoffs, and 'special deals' possible is governments bloated size and immoral usurpation of rights and liberties.

I agree that this is the whole problem right here. If the Federal Government has little power then there would be no point in bribing them because they couldn't do anything. It's only after a massive centralized bureaucracy is in place do all our our lives become beholden to the large special interests who have bought this power via the central government. And the course of human history is full of examples of such. Governments will always be bought by people with more money. Greed is an inherent human trait and easily exploitable. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Whenever these special interests decide that your freedom of speech is against their interest, the apparatus is firmly in place for them to start taking it away and, if history tells us anything, they will.

 

[Snowberry]

Wall Street Hen Houses

Wall Street Hen Houses

U.S. investment banks were in effect "Nationalized" with the trillion dollar bailouts. Problem is that the job was only a half measure, without U.S. taxpayers having an equity stake in them or any sort of repayment of the "Official rape of taxpayer's wallets"

At the same time frame Western Governments bailed out General Motors and Chrysler, but took correct steps to ensure repayment of the bailouts and by holding equity stakes in both corporations. While firing the CEO's and rationalizing both.

In effect in a simple farmer's analogy, what the governments did with respect to those who created this banking mess in the first place is as follows:

The farmer (Governments) kept the fox (Investment bankers) in charge of the hen house (banking system) in order to protect the hens (people who kept money there) and all the nest eggs (our savings and investments), finding the fox unable to keep up with the workload, the farmer decided to hire the coyote (economists with theories) who happened to be the fox's cousin for night shift duties (while the hens were asleep).

Now with these two fine nest egg security experts in charge, the farmer, exasperated with all his efforts decided to take a rest and so he did. Upon waking with a good appetite, he figured it was time for a bacon and egg breakfast, after peering around all the empty nest boxes in the hen house he called a meeting with his two security experts to figure out what happened to all the nest eggs.

During the meeting the three decided to advise all the hens in the country they have come up with a fool proof plan to ensure their problem of disappearing nest eggs would never happen again in any hen house across the land.

The farmer called a press conference to announce their plan to all the hens upon the land.

So begins the farmer....."We have concluded our hen house operation has experienced difficulty in recent times. After many meetings with experts in the industry, we have decided to implement the following measures to ensure this problem never happens again:

1, We are hiring the skunk (Federal Reserve Chairman) who has a long history as both roles of fox and coyote and granting him title of "Hen House Czar" and order that he do the following:

A, Hire his minions the weasels (other wall street bankers) to follow through with our plans of ensuring nest egg security for all the hens across the land.

B, Direct the weasels to organize all the hen houses and commandeer all the nest eggs in the land to ensure their safety.

C, Inform all the hens that their nest eggs are indeed secure in their competent hands, and to further educate all the hens by explaining the very important conclusion that all hens must trust the following nest egg caretakers, Foxes, Coyotes, Skunks and Weasels, and to further consider the services of Rats and Snakes if future problems in our hen houses experience any further difficulties."

Well folks, I think that pretty well sums it up, don't you?

 

[Baba Ku]

I didn't even know what a progressive was until we argued in the progressives thread.

I have asked several of my friends who consider themselves "progressives", what exactly a progressive is and what does it mean?
All of them give similar replies, and it is always something like "it is another term for Democrat". Nobody that I have spoken with, that calls themselves a progressive, actually knows what the term really means, and none of them had any idea of what the Progressive Movement was all about.

I asked a couple of people that I know, that consider themselves Republican or Conservatives, what the Progressive Movement was and what is a Progressive? They came back with similar replies; -"its another term for Democrat".

I am not trying to make anything political out of this thread, although cannabis itself is one of the most politicized issues out there. I am only wanting to point out that people today have no idea of what they are following or why. They simply get on the popular bandwagon and ride.
Many simply buy what is sold to them, and eat what is shoved in front of them. Happy as larks that they are eating and buying.

Now, in my opinion for what it is worth, I think that education is the only way out of our ills. If we are not an informed society, we are doomed to fall to the wayside. History has proven that time and again.
Take the misinformation that exists concerning cannabis for a prime example. We know just about all there is to know about it. Yet, the general public is still being fed bullshit by the plate loads on what cannabis actually is and does. And the misinformation originates from all sides of the political spectrum.
The bullshit about cannabis being a gateway drug, being much stronger pot than your folks smoked, lads to sterility, yada yada yada, are myths that continue to this day, and from news and information sources that lean towards BOTH sides of the political spectrum. Misinformation runs amok.

When it all shakes out, the whole thing boils down to ideologies, rather than politics.
And just as misinformation runs rampant in our society today, so does ignorance. We need to educate ourselves if we are ever truly to be a free people.
Don't take the words of others without a grain of salt and a fair amount of research of things on your own. Simply basing your opinions on the status quo of popular opinion is foolish to say the least.

For those who really don't know what the progressive movement is, I have provided a very informative link. It explains the movement in detail, and will give you a little insight on why things are the way they are today, and why folks are pulling things one way or the other so hard today.
http://www.heritage.org/research/re...t-and-the-transformation-of-american-politics

Now, don't trust that link, find others. Read up and educate yourselves. You just may actually see why, and by whom, we are being manipulated by, and for what ends.
The regulation of cannabis, as well as our free speech, falls squarely in the middle of an ideology.