Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

[Kepler]

Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

You really don't see the point he's making here?

Showing how little class he has in being an opportunist? Because, yeah, we got that.

 

[WeWantMore]

Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

Showing how little class he has in being an opportunist? Because, yeah, we got that.

Is it kind of stupid? Sure.

But it's not that hard to understand is it? Beck, as a (pretend?) conservative, is against government involvement in people's lives. Why shouldn't that extend to telling people what to eat?

 

[Rimbaud]

Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

other than rallying his base of stupid fat people?




(cue patman.......)

Now that's just funny right there.

 

[solovsfett]

Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

You and Andrew McCarthy hit it on the head. Mr. Justice Breyer was the one speculating that the First Amendment might not cover insulting Islam.

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/246965/there-oughtn-t-be-law-andrew-c-mccarthy

Breyer did his musing on Good Morning America, hardly an obscure law journal:

http://hotair.com/archives/2010/09/14/justice-breyer-no-right-to-burn-korans-in-first-amendment/

It's my understanding the "wise Latina" has expressed similar sentiments. That's two of 'em.

great article from Mr. Mccarthy. thanks for posting.

Ultimately we may get an argument in the supreme court to qualify the 1st amendment then and that would invalidate the entire document to me. that would induce entropy really. for those thinking america is on the way out like the Roman Empire (a wholly unjust and incongruent comparison but people have made that) a move such as this would drive the nail in

I shouldn't be surprised that Breyer or Kagan, or the "wise latina" (as opposed to the "unwise latina" whom I'm assuming would be one of the hundreds of thousands of Cubans who tend to vote GOP), would feel that we could qualify the 1st amendment so we don't offend islam, or don't offend x or whomever.

problem is I'm offended by flag burning (though I believe people have a right to burn flags and bibles if that's their dumb wish) so will they hear my argument? they'd have to re-visit all of that.

So we've got the merging of two devastating trains of thought. we cannot utter words or write cartoons that *might* offend islam (or presumably anyone else since that would be the next argument), and the constitution is a living breathing document and can and should be re-interpreted over time to adjust to our societal needs, whomever decides what that is.

so...here's my first argument to breyer, kagan, and sotomayor...I'm offended that people called Bush "Hitler". that comparison means you are saying I voted for Hitler in 2004 and extrapolate the B*** ***t from there.

but back to the point. I really hope we maintain our freedom of speech as is. that was EXACTLY the point Trey Parker and Matt Stone were making in South Park. The whole idea that a cartoon would upset people so much is laughable really when you think about it. a cartoon? really? get the hell back to your 1st grade class pay attention and shut up.

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

Amen. I didn't live in Minnesota prior to his far-too-soon passing, but I respected the heck out of Paul Wellstone. Almost never agreed with him, but boy did I ever appreciate his demeanor. He told you what he meant and he meant what he said. A rare find anywhere these days, let alone on the Hill.

Jim DeMint is probably the closest the Senate has to Paul Wellstone today in this respect, but I'm not sure he's quite on the level that Wellstone was.

I met Paul Wellstone twice. Once on a trip to DC on an 8th grade trip. Once when he came to our high school. He took the time to listen and respond to an 8th grade kid and a 10th grade kid asking him questions. He could have brushed me off after his talk in our auditorium but he waited and answered all of my questions and even asked me questions.

He was genuine and sincere. I definitely miss him.

 

[Handyman]

Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

great article from Mr. Mccarthy. thanks for posting.

Ultimately we may get an argument in the supreme court to qualify the 1st amendment then and that would invalidate the entire document to me. that would induce entropy really. for those thinking america is on the way out like the Roman Empire (a wholly unjust and incongruent comparison but people have made that) a move such as this would drive the nail in

I shouldn't be surprised that Breyer or Kagan, or the "wise latina" (as opposed to the "unwise latina" whom I'm assuming would be one of the hundreds of thousands of Cubans who tend to vote GOP), would feel that we could qualify the 1st amendment so we don't offend islam, or don't offend x or whomever.

problem is I'm offended by flag burning (though I believe people have a right to burn flags and bibles if that's their dumb wish) so will they hear my argument? they'd have to re-visit all of that.

So we've got the merging of two devastating trains of thought. we cannot utter words or write cartoons that *might* offend islam (or presumably anyone else since that would be the next argument), and the constitution is a living breathing document and can and should be re-interpreted over time to adjust to our societal needs, whomever decides what that is.

so...here's my first argument to breyer, kagan, and sotomayor...I'm offended that people called Bush "Hitler". that comparison means you are saying I voted for Hitler in 2004 and extrapolate the B*** ***t from there.

but back to the point. I really hope we maintain our freedom of speech as is. that was EXACTLY the point Trey Parker and Matt Stone were making in South Park. The whole idea that a cartoon would upset people so much is laughable really when you think about it. a cartoon? really? get the hell back to your 1st grade class pay attention and shut up.

While the justices in interviews may say stuff like this, I highly doubt (maybe naively I admit) that if a case came forward that dealt with this no way the SCOTUS would actually do anything that would fundamentally change the First Amendment. Don't get me wrong, they may screw everything else up (they have been doing this for a while no matter the makeup) but they will not do anything that could literally throw the entire Constitution out of phase. Once you make a change to Freedom of Speech like that, then it calls into question all of the Bill of Rights, and once that happens it is all down hill. (I am not a slippery slope guy but this slope would be huge)

The SCOTUS maybe filled to the brim with ideologues and political hacks (not to mention morons) but they will only go so far. Such a change would be noticed and could cause them grief and the need to do more work...and they would never allow such a thing.

 

[solovsfett]

Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

While the justices in interviews may say stuff like this, I highly doubt (maybe naively I admit) that if a case came forward that dealt with this no way the SCOTUS would actually do anything that would fundamentally change the First Amendment. Don't get me wrong, they may screw everything else up (they have been doing this for a while no matter the makeup) but they will not do anything that could literally throw the entire Constitution out of phase. Once you make a change to Freedom of Speech like that, then it calls into question all of the Bill of Rights, and once that happens it is all down hill. (I am not a slippery slope guy but this slope would be huge)

The SCOTUS maybe filled to the brim with ideologues and political hacks (not to mention morons) but they will only go so far. Such a change would be noticed and could cause them grief and the need to do more work...and they would never allow such a thing.

I hope you're right handy, I guess I'm falling into the very pessimistic category on some of this

 

[Old Pio]

Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

While the justices in interviews may say stuff like this, I highly doubt (maybe naively I admit) that if a case came forward that dealt with this no way the SCOTUS would actually do anything that would fundamentally change the First Amendment. Don't get me wrong, they may screw everything else up (they have been doing this for a while no matter the makeup) but they will not do anything that could literally throw the entire Constitution out of phase. Once you make a change to Freedom of Speech like that, then it calls into question all of the Bill of Rights, and once that happens it is all down hill. (I am not a slippery slope guy but this slope would be huge)

The SCOTUS maybe filled to the brim with ideologues and political hacks (not to mention morons) but they will only go so far. Such a change would be noticed and could cause them grief and the need to do more work...and they would never allow such a thing.

I hope you're right, too. However, one has to wonder why this clown would muse about carving out an Islamic exception to the First Amendment under the circumstances that exist in the country today and in such a public forum.

Robert Bork was inclined to speculate about esoteric matters of law, but never on national TV. Always in scholarly (and seldom read) law journals. And that wondering mind was part of the reason he was rejected for a seat on the court.

 

[pirate]

Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

Politicians play to the lowest common denominator and simplify their stances to appeal to the short clips that get played on the news. We see the same thing happening with spending and tax debates.

If you don't want unrestrained growth in entitlement spending, somehow this means you hate the poor or you hate the elderly and want both groups to starve/freeze/get sick and die, depending on what program's spending you wish to contain. If you don't want unrestrained growth in defense spending, you hate the troops. If you don't want tax increases on the rich, you hate the poor and middle class.

All of it is ridiculous.

Yeah, that pretty much sums it up.


We've gone past the point where parties can meet in the middle. Now we not only have 'bad' names for the far right and far left but names for people try to bridge gaps...so we've got crazies on both ends of the spectrum and cowards who would dare try to work through the partisan BS and do the right thing.

We go guardrail to guardrail like Lindsay Lohan driving a dragster at Watkins Glen.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

We've gone past the point where parties can meet in the middle. Now we not only have 'bad' names for the far right and far left but names for people try to bridge gaps...so we've got crazies on both ends of the spectrum and cowards who would dare try to work through the partisan BS and do the right thing.

It seems worse to me too, now, but I also cannot remember any time when we were not afraid we had lost civility, the courage to make hard choices, and the ability to compromise. This may be like other kinds of nostalgia: people being civic-minded, neighbor helping neighbor, kids respecting their elders, maidens being modest, music not being crap, etc. It may be the evergreen longing for a time that never was.

But either way, we aren't prisoners of social forces and an era is only the aggregate of the actions of the people living in it. Even if it actually is particularly bad now, we can improve it ourselves.

 

[pirate]

Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

Agreed. A lot of Democrats deserve blame for not having the courage of their convictions, or for not having convictions, period.

In their defense - mind you, I'm not saying this excuses their failures - it's impossible to have a public debate about foreign policy in this country.

We've been telling ourselves fairy tales for so long that any political stance that doesn't fit neatly into "loves America, hates America" is political poison. The subsequent self-flagellation by Democrats doesn't remove one iota of responsibility from the Bush administration.

While after the fact it was clearer, there was a lot of mis-information being spread by our own administration. We even had James Earl Jones do that infomercial on invasion.

Kepler - If it were an equation though, character is declining, collective intelligence is declining and the speed at which we over-react is increasing...you may be correct about the past but I suspect it is moving in the wrong direction at an increasing pace and downward slope.

I do think that slowly america eventually corrects itself and while we may wish we solved issues faster, that may be the cost of our system (which has many more positives).

 

[Red Cloud]

Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

Is it kind of stupid? Sure.

But it's not that hard to understand is it? Beck, as a (pretend?) conservative, is against government involvement in people's lives. Why shouldn't that extend to telling people what to eat?

Look, when are you and your hero Beck going to get it through your pea brains that The One and The One's wife, and Rover, know better than you do how to live your life?

 

[Kepler]

Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

Obama's program is called "Let's Move."

Bush's program was called "USA on the Move."

See the difference?

 

[WeWantMore]

Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

Obama's program is called "Let's Move."

Bush's program was called "USA on the Move."

See the difference?

Believe me, I'm no fan of Glenn Beck. He's always struck me as rather hypocritical.
I'm just saying, there were two ways the reporter could have gone with the story. Either something along the lines of "Man in favor of limited government makes case for limited government" or "ZOMG!1! Glenn Beck hates healthy food!!" So you know, good for him.

 

[WeWantMore]

Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

In other news, 58% of Middle Eastern Muslims are opposed to the mosque near Ground Zero.

But it's definitely a white racist thing to be opposed to it.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

In other news, 58% of Middle Eastern Muslims are opposed to the mosque near Ground Zero.

But it's definitely a white racist thing to be opposed to it.

This is a good sound bite, but a straw man argument. Those of us who would allow the mosque reason that in a free society you're supposed to (1) protect the rights of minorities against majority opinion, (2) not punish an entire group for what a few members of it did, and (3) not give government the right to deny rights based on a religious litmus test.

 

[Red Cloud]

Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

Believe me, I'm no fan of Glenn Beck. He's always struck me as rather hypocritical.
I'm just saying, there were two ways the reporter could have gone with the story. Either something along the lines of "Man in favor of limited government makes case for limited government" or "ZOMG!1! Glenn Beck hates healthy food!!" So you know, good for him.

Wait. I thought Obama was supposed to represent change?

The government encouraging people to exercise, there's zero problem with (other than that they have better things to spend money on in this age of waste).

The government telling me what I can and can't eat? Telling me what I'm going to weigh to be perfect in their eyes? The government trying to send me on a guilt trip? Yeah, you know what, they can go **** themselves in a hurry.

 

[blockski]

Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

Believe me, I'm no fan of Glenn Beck. He's always struck me as rather hypocritical.
I'm just saying, there were two ways the reporter could have gone with the story. Either something along the lines of "Man in favor of limited government makes case for limited government" or "ZOMG!1! Glenn Beck hates healthy food!!" So you know, good for him.

Or, call him out for the bull**** practice of using the First Lady's campaign as some instance of massive government interference in the way he lives.

For all the potential intrusions of government into the lives of libertarians, he picks this one? One that's not really even an intrusion at all, and one that just about everyone can agree is a good idea?

 

[Kepler]

Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

For all the potential intrusions of government into the lives of libertarians, he picks this one? One that's not really even an intrusion at all, and one that just about everyone can agree is a good idea?

He could have picked the Patriot Act, which libertarians find far more noxious and intrusive. It's somehow... odd... that he didn't.

 

[WeWantMore]

Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

He could have picked the Patriot Act, which is far more intrusive. It's somehow... odd... that he didn't.

Hey! Glenn Beck was for the Patriot Act before he was against it!

Like I've said, I don't need convincing that Beck is a hypocrite. I'm just saying, this specific position really isn't that outlandish.