Liberal Forum

...

RichClem » 09 Dec 2014 7:18 am » wrote:
So men are endowed by their Creator with rights. Rights come from God. You lied to me that you believed that - and you clearly do not. /quote]

I have consistently quoted the first Amendment and its prohibition against Congress restricting speech, which has nothing to do with rights.

However, given that people own corporations and choose managers to run them in their stead, restricting corporate speech also violates individual rights, just like censoring the publication of a union, church or civic group would.

Do you think the federal government should be able to censor books, movies, pamphlets, etc. just because they're done by corporations?

What I think is that you're a dancing queen trying to post mortem YOUR ruling in CU in reponse to the rest of us post-morteming the SCOTUS' ruling.

I have no interest in litigating yours, then the SCOTUS', then yours, then the SCOTUS' - chasing you from domain to domain and expecting you to stand like a man, little bitch.

I called you on your lie and you've folded like a cheap suit. Rights come from men, the founders were wrong - and rights can be given out, like so many little gifts, by men. The pull those rights from their asses.

And that is your position, little shill: That rights come from men's asses.

NeoConvict » 07 Apr 2014 10:21 am » wrote:
As an ecig business owner for the past three years and one who has been a customer of the industry is its amazing to see just how much power that big tobacco has. After the first generation e-cigs were shown to help smokers quit at rates three or four times better than any drug, patch available on the market. This created an unholy union arrayed against the fledgling, predominately mom and pop, ecig cottage industry. The FDA tried to ban ecigs as drug delievery devices, while big tobacco tried to convince people that switching from their cancer sticks to inhaling radiator fluid was stupid idea. They spent millions on a disinformation campaign. Big pharma is also a player trying, with the FDA, to label ecigarettes as drug delivery devices and subject them to huge taxes and required them complete millions of dollars worth of blind and double blind tests to prove effectiveness.

This is not the way capatilizm is supposed to work. A superior product, a better mouse trap, is being attacked and buried by the lethal tobacco industry and government agencies allegedly functioning in the publics best interest. Now that ecigs are here to stay big tobbaco have entered into the market place with inferior hardware. They have purchased some of the more experienced small juice production businesses. Their next move is "THINK OF THE CHILDREN". They are moving to ban online sales, ensuring that gas stations and wall mart are the places people can buy their inferior product. A product I believe is delibrately designed to provide a inferior experience to lower the conversion rate of smokers to vapers.

I would still like an answer to this:

Those letters in red...

Who told you that? Do you remember?

...
I can give you MOUNTAINS of evidence against the words in red. MOUNTAINS. And even mere common sense dictates that a consciousless organism designed for the sole purpose of maximizing profits and minimizing liabilities cannot possibly be expected to create a culture which constrains it to the definition implied by those red words. YOUR OWN LIFE EXPERIENCE puts the lie to that utterance, and yet you feel compelled to insist - on no evidence whatsoever - that your personal observations are anomalous.I could LITERALLY call you as a witness against your own belief system, and get you to swear to facts which put that narrative into serious question. And why? It is because you have never stopped tape and demanded answers regarding the default narrative running in the background - the unexamined assumptions which are - like the world you saw through the blue-blockers - "just the way things are."

I invite you to consider - just for one moment - that the words in red are ****. What would change in your world? What effect would that new narrative have on your life? Pain? Gain? Would your personal experiences suddenly be less confusing, make more sense, seem more real? I cannot imagine that they would not. After all, walking through life convinced that your own personal observations are invalid except in a limited and anomalous context hardly leads to an integrated and satisfying narrative - a world view with which one is comfortable.

Let me ask you again: What evidence do you have FOR that statement, or for the homily which followed, expressing the narrative about capitalism which almost every American shares? Narratives are not true based on popularity, but on defensibility, demonstrability. If those red words are as true as you hold them to be, you ought to be able to present SOME evidence in their favor, right off the top of your head. And I mean PROOFS, not dictums. You ought to be able to show a capitalist company - that is, a publicly traded/funded enterprise which is run by a hireling, as opposed to a private ship captained by the actual risk taker (free enterprise) - which succeeds by adhering to your narrative.

Can you do that? Can you give any evidence at all as to how capitalism is "supposed" to work? Where is it written? Who said it? When did it work that way? What companies employed the simple strategy of SERVING markets rather than dominating therm, dividing them up within an established oligarchy, and protecting the oligarchy's exclusive access to those markets by the government gun, under color of law? Because I can give mountains of irrefutable evidence of the creature's design. And the actual design of capitalism is nothing like the descriptors which follow the letters in red. The common and routine behaviors of Wall Street corporations are not anomalies. They're norms.

And that distinction right there? It's a pretty important distinction, if it's true. And if it's false, you ought to be able to take a poke at it without losing the hand you poked it with. It's a big old claim - and it should be easy to call **** on it, using evidence from the real world as opposed to dictums from abstract theory or cultural bromides and homilies.

Cannonpointer » 10 Dec 2014 12:38 am » wrote: What I think is that you're a dancing queen trying to post mortem YOUR ruling in CU in reponse to the rest of us post-morteming the SCOTUS' ruling.

I have no interest in litigating yours, then the SCOTUS', then yours, then the SCOTUS' - chasing you from domain to domain and expecting you to stand like a man, little bitch.

I called you on your lie and you've folded like a cheap suit. Rights come from men, the founders were wrong - and rights can be given out, like so many little gifts, by men. The pull those rights from their asses.

And that is your position, little shill: That rights come from men's asses.

Great, great job as usual at ignoring my point about free speech and stonewalling my question, too.

Do you think the federal government should be able to censor books, movies, pamphlets, etc. just because they're done by corporations?

Go f*** yourself, psycho.

RichClem » 11 Dec 2014 12:30 pm » wrote: Great, great job as usual at ignoring my point about free speech and stonewalling my question, too.

Do you think the federal government should be able to censor books, movies, pamphlets, etc. just because they're done by corporations?

Go f*** yourself, psycho.

No and fortunately we aren't under the thumb of a dictator yet so the point is moot, a strawman and a diversion from the subject at hand.

Your question has been answered.

greatnpowerfuloz » 11 Dec 2014 1:02 pm » wrote: No and fortunately we aren't under the thumb of a dictator yet so the point is moot, a strawman and a diversion from the subject at hand.

Your question has been answered.

I don't have any idea what you're babbling about.

Nor did CP answer my question in his post or ever, that I saw.

RichClem » 11 Dec 2014 1:23 pm » wrote: I don't have any idea what you're babbling about.

Nor did CP answer my question in his post or ever, that I saw.

It was the question of an idiot. Just be grateful someone lowered themselves down far enough to your level to answer it at all.

Now you answer it, jackass.

Do you think the federal government should be able to censor books, movies, pamphlets, etc. just because they're done by corporations?

If you're answer is also NO, we are in agreement, twaddle.

RichClem » 11 Dec 2014 1:23 pm » wrote: I don't have any idea what you're babbling about.

Nor did CP answer my question in his post or ever, that I saw.

lying troll crap

Brattle Street » 11 Dec 2014 5:01 pm » wrote: lying troll crap

Somebody called his bluff. It frightened him. He wet his pants. A true con, he starts pointing a finger at the source.

All in a days work for clemmy damp panties.

RichClem » 11 Dec 2014 12:30 pm » wrote: Do you think the federal government should be able to censor books, movies, pamphlets, etc. just because they're done by corporations?

What's that? You want to talk about something other than CU? Your shameful book burning history, instead, ya say?

Okay, psycho. Let's discuss censorship, you little pig. You have applauded Joe McCarthy's witch hunt for communists - AMERICANS whose ONLY CRIME was a thought crime: That they believed another economi system superior to our own.

On behalf of capital, Joey McCarthy hunted down and dogged to the ends of the earth anyone suspected of merely having INVESTIGATED communism - of having attended a few ,MEETINGS.

Now, then. Do you suppose it was safe to read Das Kapital in that day? The actions of a man that YOU DEFEND made it very, very unsafe.

Now then, ypou pathetic little queer bait. WHAT WERE YOU ASKING ME, PIG?

Capitalism did strike again this week. My accountant told me that I needed to buy new vehicles before year end, so yoda moved an Avalon, Tundra and and two Sienna's this week.

crimsongulf » 11 Dec 2014 8:48 pm » wrote:Capitalism did strike again this week. My accountant told me that I needed to buy new vehicles before year end, so yoda moved an Avalon, Tundra and and two Sienna's this week.

I can remember a time when putative conservative bought a merkin.

Cannonpointer » 11 Dec 2014 8:55 pm » wrote:
I can remember a time when putative conservative bought a merkin.

All of them were built by muricuns.

crimsongulf » 11 Dec 2014 9:10 pm » wrote:
All of them were built by muricuns.

I know. It's amazing the japs can build here profitably, but we have to go to mexico.

If I didn't have fox to keep me centered, I'd think management, of all people, bore SOME responsibility for Detroit - not just labor unions and street ***.

Even in todays world it helps if you bring a quality product to the table.

Cannonpointer » 11 Dec 2014 9:13 pm » wrote:
I know. It's amazing the japs can build here profitably, but we have to go to mexico.

If I didn't have fox to keep me centered, I'd think management, of all people, bore SOME responsibility for Detroit - not just labor unions and street ***.

Your problem was mgmt and unions being in bed together, which led to a POS product.

Cannonpointer » 11 Dec 2014 7:51 pm » wrote: What's that? You want to talk about something other than CU? Your shameful book burning history, instead, ya say?

Okay, psycho. Let's discuss censorship, you little pig. You have applauded Joe McCarthy's witch hunt for communists....

Oh look, the psychopath once again dodged the question.

Go f*** yourself, as usual.

Nor have I ever burned books, you babbling imbecile.

Cannonpointer » 11 Dec 2014 7:51 pm » wrote: You have applauded Joe McCarthy's witch hunt for communists - AMERICANS whose ONLY CRIME was a thought crime: That they believed another economi system superior to our own.

On behalf of capital, Joey McCarthy hunted down and dogged to the ends of the earth anyone suspected of merely having INVESTIGATED communism - of having attended a few ,MEETINGS.

Now, then. Do you suppose it was safe to read Das Kapital in that day? The actions of a man that YOU DEFEND made it very, very unsafe.

Now then, ypou pathetic little queer bait. WHAT WERE YOU ASKING ME, PIG?

Oh my, he was concerned about people who advocated a genocidal of government and were a danger to the country?


Who usually adulated a mass murdering dictator and our mortal enemy?

Who often committed treason and spied for Stalin?

Only a moonbat would think that's a scandal.

RichClem » 11 Dec 2014 11:13 pm » wrote: Oh my, he was concerned about people who advocated a genocidal of government and were a danger to the country?

Who usually adulated a mass murdering dictator and our mortal enemy?

Who often committed treason and spied for Stalin?

Only a moonbat would think that's a scandal.

the whole world KNOWS that it was a despicable action by a cowardly failure…. except you and the corporate lobbyist propaganda core whores.

RichClem » 11 Dec 2014 11:13 pm » wrote:
Oh my, he was concerned about people who advocated a genocidal of government and were a danger to the country?

Who usually adulated a mass murdering dictator and our mortal enemy?

Who often committed treason and spied for Stalin?

Only a moonbat would think that's a scandal.

Hey, chump change: He was going after people who went to the wrong cocktail party.

You support his book burning, censorship ways, you ignorant turd.

That means YOU - the guy harrumphing about censorship - have a SOLID HISTORY ON THIS BOARD OF ADVOCATING FOR CENSORSHIP, you stupid hypocrite.

Your *** is busted out, fraud. Get new talking points, you stupid freak.