The echo chamber
-
Because it's really hard to argue with people who already have a tenuous grasp on reality. When someone thinks Obama is a diehard marxist despite the massive concessions he's made to insurance companies and banks, or that the current HC bill somehow represents "government health care," it's hard for me to convince you of anything. Instead of wasting time, I'd rather just talk about the Browns, something everyone here has in common.
For the record, I think the HC bill is a piece of shit too, but for completely different reasons.
-
IMO: A lot of liberals wont post stuff here is because they know that most of the programs that the progressives want are bogus and silly.
Why is it more and more Americans are tuning into Fox news? Maybe because they are tired of all of the propagated liberal media on the other channels. Just the other day I was reading that more and more Americans are leaning towards libertarian ideals. They were stating that most would move over to vote for republicans but they are waiting to see if the republicans will stand up and deliver.
IMO: A lot of liberals wont post stuff here is because they know that most of the programs that the progressives want are bogus and silly.
I'd agree with this post mostly as well, surprisingly, although I'd replace "progressives" with "the Democratic Party." The Dems are pretty incompetent when it comes to sound policy making. The sad thing is that people end up conflating the idiocy of the Democrats with progressivism/liberalism in general, when it's more like crony capitalism-lite with lip service given to progressive social causes. There is no liberal/left party in the US, unfortunately.
-
But there are leftists/progressives in the Democratic party.
Well, probably a few here and there in the Rep party, for that matter.
And Heck,
I keep saying it - I am talking about trends.
Similarites.
You just have no explanation for Obama being outraged at Seleya's HONDURAS SUPREME COURT
ouster out of the country, because Seleya was working at a Chavez style "extended" presidency.
And Obama has SAID he thinks our Constitution is a "negative document".
How many similaries will you ignore, Heck?
I am SAYING the direction he is going in, and his statements, are an indication, that he is trending
toward the same kind of desire for power via dishonest manipulation, and It isn't just me or T.
There are millions of Americans who are concerned.
Change the "face" of America? Eh, he doesn't like our FACE or our CONSTITUTION, but
nobody should say he talks like a Seleya and a Chavez, he walks like a Seleya and Chavez,
and he flip flops on what he promised vs his actions like a Mexican jumping bean.
Hard core libs around here never say what they BELIEVE, they just attack other people's beliefs.
Older folks from Europe see it. They know history.
Never allowing us to know what you believe, because you don't like what I believe, Heck? HA.
Excuse making coward. Yellow Bellied Sapsmoocher.
-
Hysterical. That coup you're speaking of happened in the summer of 2009. You've never mentioned it before today, and I don't imagine you're really up on Central America affairs.
But Karl Rove did mention it last night in an attack on Obama, and that was picked up by the right-wing press. I wonder if that's why all of a sudden you're upset about it too. Could it be you're just reciting what someone told you to be upset about essentially word for word?
Congrats on taking orders.
And Obama never said the Constitution is a "negative document". Maybe people say that he said that, and you think that he said that, but he didn't. (And then from that falsehood, you infer that he's a danger to America!) What he said was that the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties, which it is. That's entirely different from what you just said he said, which he didn't. It's just that you don't read real news, or know anything about anything, so you're lost.
Once again, you're being told to believe something that isn't true, and you believe it because you don't know any better.
I don't know why I talk to you. But a simple acknowledgement that he didn't say the Constitution was a "negative document" would be a start.
-
So you post him talking about something entirely different, and remarkably uncontroversial, to prove what?
T, Cal said Obama said the Constitution was a "negative document". That was his quote. Obama didn't say that. He once spoke of the Constitution as "a charter of negative liberties."
Cal needs to prove that I'm wrong. Clearly I'm not wrong that Obama once spoke of "a charter of negative liberties", and you can Google that phrase and find a few hundred places that reported that quote. I can remember it off the top of my head because it became a topic of discussion during the Supreme Court hearings.
If Cal can find a news source that quotes Obama correctly as saying the Constitution is a "negative document" he's free to do so. Otherwise, he's got to admit he had that wrong.
And then he's got to go back and revisit his theory that Obama's dangerous and we're heading towards Nazi Germany (which Europeans understand because they know history!) because he thinks the Constitution is a negative document.
And why I just wasted another 6 minutes of my time talking to a lunatic is beyond me.
-
Yes, I'm sure the former Constitutional Law Professor could use a lecture on the Constitution from the likes of Cal and T.
-
#1 - you are very foolish to think it is the first time I've mentioned Selaya being ousted out
of Honduras by the Supreme Court. I've mentioned it many times. Ask anybody on the board who isn't
licking Obamao's toes. Seriously.
#2 - you are being dumb again - "negative document" refers to what the exact quote was
meaning. Say, can you show me where I said it was an EXACT QUOTE? don't think so.
-
Anybody can use the search function and look up the times I mentioned Seleya/Selaya ? and the supreme court.
back in Sept.
well before last night ... and if you just search on how many times I have referred to just HIM, it's several more times.
This is March.
You are a loser.
Is there ANYTHING you believe in Heck?
-
Obama constitution video
What do you think is wrong with what he's saying in this video? Just wondering.
Also, this may help clear things up http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_liberty
What do you think is wrong with what he's saying in this video? Just wondering.
Also, this may help clear things up http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_liberty
I really dont give wikipedia a whole lot of credit as a reference point, try handing in a paper in college with wikipedia as one of your sources. Even your profs will tell you that anyone can write whats in wiki. For all we know that was written by heckles.
And for Obama studying constitutional law, Im sure he took a class in it. Doesn't mean that he passed. (grades were never disclosed) I can remember how everyone was told that Obama was a constituinal lawyer and that is his belief, when on the other hand we here in the youtube video with his own words that he believes in a living constitution and that it is flawed because african-americans (hyphenated american again) were not made part of the process. Well I think he is a racist. And we shall see how he governs. I would say obama is a case study lawyer. meaning that we can change the law case by case.
Its not what he says he is, but what he does. The same as actions speak louder than words.
dyk: A jury can change laws, they can block the enforcement of any unjust laws. But does obama think that the constitution is an unjust piece of paper? Y or N?
-
Yes, I'm sure the former Constitutional Law Professor could use a lecture on the Constitution from the likes of Cal and T.
Yes, I'm sure the former Constitutional Law Professor could use a lecture on the Constitution from the likes of Cal and T.
Of course constitutional "scholars" often disagree on the intent and interpretation of the constitutuion.
Like the Bible.
Bernie Sanders taught at Harvard.
WSS
-
Of course. But this is comical:
"#2 - you are being dumb again - "negative document" refers to what the exact quote was
meaning. Say, can you show me where I said it was an EXACT QUOTE? don't think so."
I can't even tell what that means. Maybe I'm just being dumb, but what quote are you talking about Cal? You used quotation marks around the words "negative document." In the real world, that's the same as saying it's an "EXACT QUOTE".
Can you find when Obama said the Constitution was a "negative document"? Or do you want to admit he didn't say that.
I'll happily admit that you might have mentioned the Honduran coup before, since I don't always read your posts and can't imagine you know anything about Central American politics.
-
What do you think is wrong with what he's saying in this video? Just wondering.
Also, this may help clear things up http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_liberty
I really dont give wikipedia a whole lot of credit as a reference point, try handing in a paper in college with wikipedia as one of your sources. Even your profs will tell you that anyone can write whats in wiki. For all we know that was written by heckles.
And for Obama studying constitutional law, Im sure he took a class in it. Doesn't mean that he passed. (grades were never disclosed) I can remember how everyone was told that Obama was a constituinal lawyer and that is his belief, when on the other hand we here in the youtube video with his own words that he believes in a living constitution and that it is flawed because african-americans (hyphenated american again) were not made part of the process. Well I think he is a racist. And we shall see how he governs. I would say obama is a case study lawyer. meaning that we can change the law case by case.
Its not what he says he is, but what he does. The same as actions speak louder than words.
dyk: A jury can change laws, they can block the enforcement of any unjust laws. But does obama think that the constitution is an unjust piece of paper? Y or N?
I really dont give wikipedia a whole lot of credit as a reference point, try handing in a paper in college with wikipedia as one of your sources. Even your profs will tell you that anyone can write whats in wiki. For all we know that was written by heckles.
Except it's a basic concept in politics/political theory? I'm just using wikipedia as an easy reference point, the idea of positive and negative liberty has been discussed in about every significant political text in one way or another since Hobbes/Locke/Rousseau/etc... it's not something some dude on the internet dreamed up.
As far as web sources go, here's the Stanford philosophy website, and a paper by Berlin discussing the subject. Saying the constitution is a charter of negative liberties has a very specific (not to mention correct) meaning.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/liberty-...tive/#TwoConLib
http://www.nyu.edu/projects/nissenbaum/pap...twoconcepts.pdf
And for Obama studying constitutional law, Im sure he took a class in it. Doesn't mean that he passed. (grades were never disclosed) I can remember how everyone was told that Obama was a constituinal lawyer and that is his belief, when on the other hand we here in the youtube video with his own words that he believes in a living constitution and that it is flawed because african-americans (hyphenated american again) were not made part of the process. Well I think he is a racist. And we shall see how he governs. I would say obama is a case study lawyer. meaning that we can change the law case by case.
You don't believe the original Constitution was flawed and racist towards blacks? I'm not sure what to say if you can't accept that... AAs had no rights under the original document, and certainly were not made "part of the process." I'm not sure how you can construe Obama as a racist from a factual statement like that.
-
#1 - you are very foolish to think it is the first time I've mentioned Selaya being ousted out
of Honduras by the Supreme Court. I've mentioned it many times. Ask anybody on the board who isn't
licking Obamao's toes. Seriously.
#2 - you are being dumb again - "negative document" refers to what the exact quote was
meaning. Say, can you show me where I said it was an EXACT QUOTE? don't think so.
#2 - you are being dumb again - "negative document" refers to what the exact quote was
meaning. Say, can you show me where I said it was an EXACT QUOTE? don't think so.
see my above post. This is an example of what I meant in my other post earlier. When someone doesn't have a grasp on a concept like "negative liberty" and goes off the rocker when they hear someone they don't like (Obama) describing something they do like (the Constitution) as "negative" without even a full understanding of what "negative" in that context even means, it's hard to argue with them.
-
Ha. Welcome to the nuthouse, Shoot. Enjoy banging your head against the wall.
-
These are two great posts to get you used to how things roll in here.
First, you have Cal pulling a quote out of his ass, getting called on it, even having the actual quote read back to him, then claiming that his use of quotation marks wasn't meant to be an actual quote, and then calling me dumb for thinking that when you quote someone it means you ...quote someone. And no admission that he's wrong, and that Obama never said what Cal likes to imagine that he said.
Then you have T saying that negative liberty doesn't mean what you think negative liberty means because you linked him to the Wiki page on negative liberty, even though there's nothing wrong with the Wiki page on negative liberty. Nor does he have an alternative definition for what negative liberty means. He just knows it doesn't mean what you think it means, even though he doesn't know what it means.
Then he tries to deny that Obama was a Constitutional law professor, and instead says that, "Im sure he took a class in it. Doesn't mean that he passed." It doesn't seem matter that Obama was employed as a professor of Constitutional Law at the University of Chicago.
And he can't seem to understand the very simple ideas Obama is expressing in that YouTube video, even though they're entirely uncontroversial.
So welcome to the alternative reality of the lunatic fringe. Trust me, you've never seen anything quite like it. It'll be quite an eye-opener for you, I'm sure.
-
Actually, I used to be a speech major, English minor in secondary education back in the day...
The use of quotation marks, Mr, Jellybean, is more versatile that you childishly suggest.
As in, "there you go again", making a twisted point to make you feel intelligent,
then I kick your ego to the curb until you whimper and come back for more.
Follow this link, Heck, and learn about quotation marks. It does NOT simply imply "exact quote".
Wow. What an infantile way to try to "win" a discussion.
Shoot probably doesn't want to be like you, unless he's been here before with another signon ...
Here, Mr. Jellybean, learn something for a change:
I "sneer" and "sneeze" in your direction, but I hope I didn't "scare" you.
The "irony" is, Heck, your arrogance is most certainly, "embarrassingly unjustfied".
***************************************
ttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quotation_mark
Irony
Main article: Scare quotes
Another common use of quotation marks is to indicate or call attention to ironic or apologetic words:
He shared his "wisdom" with me.
The lunch lady plopped a glob of "food" onto my tray.
To avoid the potential for confusion between ironic quotes and direct quotations, some style guides specify single quotation marks for this usage, and double quotation marks for verbatim speech. Quotes indicating irony, or other special use, are sometimes called scare, sneer, shock, distance, or horror quotes. They are sometimes gestured in oral speech using air quotes.
-
Yeah, you don't want to trust Heck for much, Shoot.
He keeps "shooting" himself in the foot.
(OH GOSH< I USED QUOTATION MARKS AGAIN IN IRONY)
-
Hysterical. So let me get this straight - you were quoting something you claimed Obama said, but what you really were doing was quoting something he didn't say, but something scary you made up?
That's rich. We believe you. Really, we do.
So if Obama didn't say that, and you knew that when you wrote that, what was your point of alleging that Obama thinks the Constitution is a "negative document", and that this should cause us worry, like we're heading towards Nazi Germany?
If you knew all he was speaking of was "negative liberty", why would we have any reason to be concerned?
And again, why do I bother talking with someone as ridiculous as you?
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login