i'd think so too. but after talking nonstop about human rights, freedom, liberty, etc. for the last two months. in the last two days people assumed i was against gay marriage, and assumed i was against the freedom of speech.

youd think people would know my intentions by now?

In reply to this comment by nibiyabi:
Sure, but maybe after a couple of said statements, people will just get to know your intentions in general.

In reply to this comment by imstellar28:
its a bit cumbersome to state my intention in a disclaimer, after everything i say though. don't you think?

In reply to this comment by nibiyabi:
OK, that's what I suspected. You should make this more clear in the future.

In reply to this comment by imstellar28:
i'm not just trying to present my views i'm trying to get people to think about their own views.

if i walk around saying what is right, people would just call me "arrogant" or a "know-it-all". my intention was to get people to question their beliefs to find out (for themselves) if they really understand them.

i wasn't trying to "test" people just to show im smarter or to be condescending. the truth is, people are going to interpret what i say based on their own attitude or current state of mind. no matter how i challenge someones views, they can feel slighted by it.

In reply to this comment by nibiyabi:
^OK, I had a feeling you were doing this. I assume this isn't intentional, but when your views are presented in quiz format, they tend to take on an air of condescension and invite angry retorts (as you've probably noticed by now). Stick to presenting your views in a normal, rational way, and people will respect you and listen to you. You have some very interesting ideas, but it's hard to see them through the presentation sometimes.

its a bit cumbersome to state my intention in a disclaimer, after everything i say though. don't you think?

In reply to this comment by nibiyabi:
OK, that's what I suspected. You should make this more clear in the future.

In reply to this comment by imstellar28:
i'm not just trying to present my views i'm trying to get people to think about their own views.

if i walk around saying what is right, people would just call me "arrogant" or a "know-it-all". my intention was to get people to question their beliefs to find out (for themselves) if they really understand them.

i wasn't trying to "test" people just to show im smarter or to be condescending. the truth is, people are going to interpret what i say based on their own attitude or current state of mind. no matter how i challenge someones views, they can feel slighted by it.

In reply to this comment by nibiyabi:
^OK, I had a feeling you were doing this. I assume this isn't intentional, but when your views are presented in quiz format, they tend to take on an air of condescension and invite angry retorts (as you've probably noticed by now). Stick to presenting your views in a normal, rational way, and people will respect you and listen to you. You have some very interesting ideas, but it's hard to see them through the presentation sometimes.

i'm not just trying to present my views i'm trying to get people to think about their own views.

if i walk around saying what is right, people would just call me "arrogant" or a "know-it-all". my intention was to get people to question their beliefs to find out (for themselves) if they really understand them.

i wasn't trying to "test" people just to show im smarter or to be condescending. the truth is, people are going to interpret what i say based on their own attitude or current state of mind. no matter how i challenge someones views, they can feel slighted by it.

In reply to this comment by nibiyabi:
^OK, I had a feeling you were doing this. I assume this isn't intentional, but when your views are presented in quiz format, they tend to take on an air of condescension and invite angry retorts (as you've probably noticed by now). Stick to presenting your views in a normal, rational way, and people will respect you and listen to you. You have some very interesting ideas, but it's hard to see them through the presentation sometimes.

>> ^nibiyabi:
Because free expression is inherent in the idea of freedom which is a natural human right. What else could you possibly be getting at?

>> ^imstellar28:
thats exactly what i was getting at...."natural human right"
the FCC is bad because it violates natural human rights.


I get that you are talking about fundamental rights and not rights "granted by the government", but the truth is this: rights are an abstract concept. They don't exist in reality, only in the human mind.

You can derive rights logically from fundamental needs, but that doesn't make them tangible things. And if they are not tangible, they are subject to debate. In order to have a right, it must be agreed upon by the masses. It must be fought for, and defended against those who disagree.

If the universe was full of rational, intelligent people you might be able to form a government founded upon simple, fundamental, "natural" rights. But that's not the universe we live in.

>> ^nibiyabi:
Because free expression is inherent in the idea of freedom which is a natural human right. What else could you possibly be getting at?

thats exactly what i was getting at...."natural human right"

the FCC is bad because it violates natural human rights.

>> ^imstellar28:
^the first amendment is a paraphrase of "the right to express ones opinion" recorded on a piece of paper. anyone can write anything on a piece of paper.
that doesn't explain why anyone has the right to express their opinion


Are you trying to make a point, or just being a dick?

The right to free speech is in the Bill of Rights as a safeguard against suppression of criticism by the federal government. It is not intended to protect vulgarity, and there is significant case-law determining that it does not protect incitement to panic or riot, nor does it protect hate-speech.

However, the monitoring of broadcasts for vulgarities is a direct result of twisted protestant "ethics" influencing government agencies, just as violence is allowed to be shown but not nudity.

>> ^imstellar28:
^the first amendment is a paraphrase of "the right to express ones opinion" recorded on a piece of paper. anyone can write anything on a piece of paper.
that doesn't explain why anyone has the right to express their opinion


It appears that you defend different parts of the Constitution with varying degrees of vigor.

If you insist on stretching this as far as it will go, the ultimate answer is silence in an empty universe.

>> ^imstellar28:
^the first amendment is a paraphrase of "the right to express ones opinion" recorded on a piece of paper. anyone can write anything on a piece of paper.
that doesn't explain why anyone has the right to express their opinion

>> ^thinker247:
^Because the FCC frightens people and networks into using "appropriate" language, ignoring any context, or the right of a person to express their opinion.


They are "censorers" and "frighteners". I understand. Why does anyone have a right to express their opinion?

>> ^imstellar28:
ok, so FCC bad. anyone wanna explain why that is?


Because of the function as censors. And, you know, fuck censorship.

Paging Joe Scarborough!

"He (Barack) validated himself with 18 million votes." - Joe Scarborough
Please, no more of this 'executive' experience, close to Russia bulls#it. Well put Joe. Nice sift.

Liberals dominate the media....this has been announced by Rush Limbaugh. And Thomas Sowell. And Ann Coulter. And Rich Lowry. And Bill O'Reilly. And William Safire. And Robert Novak. And William F. Buckley, Jr. And George Will.

And John Gibson. And Michelle Malkin. And David Brooks. And Tony Snow. And Tony Blankely. And Fred Barnes. And Britt Hume. And Larry Kudlow. And Sean Hannity. And David Horowitz. And William Kristol. And Hugh Hewitt.

And Oliver North. And Joe Scarborough. And Pat Buchanan. And John McLaughlin. And Cal Thomas. And Joe Klein. And James Kilpatrick. And Tucker Carlson. And Deroy Murdock. And Michael Savage. And Charles Krauthammer. And Stephen Moore. And Alan Keyes.

And Gary Bauer. And Mort Kondracke. And Andrew Sullivan. And Nicholas von Hoffman. And Neil Cavuto. And Matt Drudge. And Mike Rosen. And Dave Kopel. And John Caldara.

The mainstream media in this country are dominated by liberals. Look at how they all gave Bill Clinton a pass on the whole Monica Lewsinsky affair. Remember? It was never in the news. We never heard any of the salacious details.

It's a dupe:

http://www.videosift.com/video/You-know-things-are-bad-when-Joe-Scarborough-is-asking-if-Bush-is-an-idiot

*discard

*rolls eyes at ending music* Actually it was a pretty civil interview, Joe Scarborough usually elicits me to feel the need to punch him in the face (I've gone through several monitors that way).