Losing Free Speech?
Moderators: Aergis, Invisusira
Re: Losing Free Speech?
all i can say is WTF in regards to those quotes
i am getting more and more scared for this country
i am getting more and more scared for this country

Brekkie:Tanks are like shitty DPS. And healers are like REALLY distracted DPS
Amirya:Why yes, your penis is longer than his because you hit 30k dps in the first 10 seconds. But guess what? That raid boss has a dick bigger than your ego.
Flex:I don't make mistakes. I execute carefully planned strategic group wipes.
Levie:(in /g) It's weird, I have a collar and I dont know where I got it from, Worgen are kinky!
Levie:Drunk Lev goes and does what he pleases just to annoy sober Lev.
-

bldavis - Posts: 6576
- Joined: Mon Sep 07, 2009 12:04 pm
- Location: RL of PK on SC
Re: Losing Free Speech?
Jabari wrote:Fridmarr wrote:It's a rather silly to claim that I've "fallen" for something without even bothering to find out what about him concerns me.
Ok, fair enough. I assumed that since you said "you're right" that it was for the same reason. My bad on that.
If it's not the GGG stuff, then probably for the same reasons that I find him (along with all the rest) scary.
I don't know that I've heard much come out of his mouth that hasn't annoyed me. What pisses me off the most is the media's continued assertion that he's "more conservative" than Romney. People are not voting for Romney for all sorts of reasons, but they sure as hell aren't voting for Santorum because he's "more conservative" unless they are living under a rock.
- Fridmarr
- Global Mod
- Posts: 9405
- Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 1:03 am
Re: Losing Free Speech?
So case in point...There's an article titled "Rick Santorum wants to ban hard-core pornography" on Yahoo News. Now, aside from the fact that it sounds like that headline is slightly misleading, because Santorum is saying it's already illegal, he just wants to enforce the existing laws (I say "sounds like" because I have no clue about pornography laws), you get this gem...
If you assume the typical scale where you have Republicans to the right of center progressing more conservative to libertarianism at the right end of the scale, then this idea for the Federal Government to ban hardcore porn is not only not "more conservative" it's the exact opposite! They keep trying to push this notion of the concept of the "Religious Right" being very conservative, when in fact they are center left/right. They want their religious morals enforced through government which is a polar opposite tenant to further right conservatism which heavily values personal freedoms.Wonkette's Rebecca Schoenkopf pointed out it's just another example of Santorum positioning himself as the extremely conservative choice for president.
- Fridmarr
- Global Mod
- Posts: 9405
- Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 1:03 am
Re: Losing Free Speech?
When people talk about Santorum being conservative, they mean social conservatism. The left-right scale is a gross simplification.
- KysenMurrin
- Posts: 5973
- Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2008 6:37 am
- Location: UK
Re: Losing Free Speech?
KysenMurrin wrote:When people talk about Santorum being conservative, they mean social conservatism. The left-right scale is a gross simplification.
Yes it is overly simplified but it's also the vernacular, and on that Santorum is being improperly placed.
- Fridmarr
- Global Mod
- Posts: 9405
- Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 1:03 am
Re: Losing Free Speech?
I share your wonderment, Fridmarr. I don't understand why people don't see something odd when the 'small government' candidate is preaching intervention on that scale.
You can raise taxes in the US. We get angry. We deal with it with alcohol and sex. If prohibition has taught us anything, it's don't fuck with the accessibility of sex and alcohol.
You can raise taxes in the US. We get angry. We deal with it with alcohol and sex. If prohibition has taught us anything, it's don't fuck with the accessibility of sex and alcohol.
-

firstamendme - Posts: 500
- Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2008 10:05 am
Re: Losing Free Speech?
I'm on my phone, otherwise i'd post it, but there's a video of santorum saying that if you want someone who is conservative, vote for ron paul.

-

Melathys - Posts: 1878
- Joined: Sun Sep 23, 2007 1:08 pm
Re: Losing Free Speech?
I rather liked John Huntsman, and would have gladly voted for him and even donated to his campaign. But he was forced to drop out when his polls tanked after he made the suicidal mistake of letting word get out that he "agreed that Evolution was factual". *rolls eyes*
Ronny Raygun himself would be completely un-electable by today's republican party, and would be drummed out of the race for the nomination as a RINO by current standards. And yet he is the Republican Messiah. What?
Ronny Raygun himself would be completely un-electable by today's republican party, and would be drummed out of the race for the nomination as a RINO by current standards. And yet he is the Republican Messiah. What?
Theckhd wrote:big numbers are the in-game way of expressing that Brekkie's penis is huge.
- Brekkie
- Posts: 895
- Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2010 7:44 pm
Re: Losing Free Speech?
Fridmarr, I think you might like Gary Johnson, the libertarian Governor of New Mexico. He's like a not-batshit-insane version of Ron Paul, and has an EXCELLENT track record as Governor.
Theckhd wrote:big numbers are the in-game way of expressing that Brekkie's penis is huge.
- Brekkie
- Posts: 895
- Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2010 7:44 pm
Re: Losing Free Speech?
Melathys wrote:if you want someone who is conservative, vote for ron paul.
Or move to Russia.
A reckoning is not to be postponed indefinitely.
-

Passionario - Posts: 3135
- Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2007 2:52 am
Re: Losing Free Speech?
What I hope happens, sooner or later, is that we get rid of the two party system. Hell, get rid of the electoral college for that matter - the electoral college system is a failsafe designed to keep the American populace from being able to "make mistakes", and it encourages presidential candidates to actively ignore certain states during their campaigning. I can think of at least one time in recent history that the electoral college has actively voted against the popular vote.
Anyone who still thinks that America is a democracy, or even a republic, is sadly mistaken. We've become a full blown oligarchy, where our ruling class isn't dependent on who wants to do the most good, or make the most beneficial changes, but rather who has the deepest pockets.
Anyone who still thinks that America is a democracy, or even a republic, is sadly mistaken. We've become a full blown oligarchy, where our ruling class isn't dependent on who wants to do the most good, or make the most beneficial changes, but rather who has the deepest pockets.
- I'm not Jesus, but I can turn water into Kool-Aid.
- A Sergeant in motion outranks an officer who doesn't know what the hell is going on.
- A demolitions specialist at a flat run outranks everybody.
- A Sergeant in motion outranks an officer who doesn't know what the hell is going on.
- A demolitions specialist at a flat run outranks everybody.
-

Fivelives - Posts: 2871
- Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2008 7:55 pm
Re: Losing Free Speech?
heh. Looking through this, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Was ... ll_Address
It seems that we've become everything Washington warned us against.
It seems that we've become everything Washington warned us against.

-

Melathys - Posts: 1878
- Joined: Sun Sep 23, 2007 1:08 pm
Re: Losing Free Speech?
I prefer the electoral college actually. I think changing to a popular vote would make the ignoring much worse. Only major cities would really matter at that point.
Reagan would definitely not be considered a RINO by today's standards, just hit up youtube on him sometime. Reagan had a ton of charisma and an ability to articulate his beliefs in a way that confounded the media's idiocy. You can see that ability in Obama too, granted he doesn't have to deal with an antagonist media, but he could handle that just fine. The only person I've seen on the conservative side that can it in a long time is Chris Christie.
Reagan would definitely not be considered a RINO by today's standards, just hit up youtube on him sometime. Reagan had a ton of charisma and an ability to articulate his beliefs in a way that confounded the media's idiocy. You can see that ability in Obama too, granted he doesn't have to deal with an antagonist media, but he could handle that just fine. The only person I've seen on the conservative side that can it in a long time is Chris Christie.
- Fridmarr
- Global Mod
- Posts: 9405
- Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 1:03 am
Re: Losing Free Speech?
Major cities get a lot of play in rural areas. Our network television stations are broadcast out of the nearest major city, for instance - that way we'd at least know who all the candidates are (without resorting to reading USA Today or another nationwide newspaper).
It's better than ignoring states, at least. How many politicians have you seen scheduling campaign stops at East Westfuckistan anyway? They always restrict their campaign stops to major cities already.
It's better than ignoring states, at least. How many politicians have you seen scheduling campaign stops at East Westfuckistan anyway? They always restrict their campaign stops to major cities already.
- I'm not Jesus, but I can turn water into Kool-Aid.
- A Sergeant in motion outranks an officer who doesn't know what the hell is going on.
- A demolitions specialist at a flat run outranks everybody.
- A Sergeant in motion outranks an officer who doesn't know what the hell is going on.
- A demolitions specialist at a flat run outranks everybody.
-

Fivelives - Posts: 2871
- Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2008 7:55 pm
Re: Losing Free Speech?
No, by major I mean major. Nearly the entire midwest would be ignored. By choosing a city model (which is what a popular vote would basically amount too) instead of state, you're just by definition concentrating the focus that much more.
Politicians stop in non major cities all the time.
EDIT: Just look at the county level red/blue map from the last couple of elections, all that anyone would focus on would be the blue section, because it's all that you need and it's way easier to manage.
Politicians stop in non major cities all the time.
EDIT: Just look at the county level red/blue map from the last couple of elections, all that anyone would focus on would be the blue section, because it's all that you need and it's way easier to manage.
- Fridmarr
- Global Mod
- Posts: 9405
- Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 1:03 am
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests
