27 thoughts on “.”Liberals” Who Love The Regulatory State”
“There’s nothing ‘liberal’ about them.”
And that’s why I prefer the more accurate label, “State-shtupper.”
“I remember when ‘liberal’ meant being generous with your own money.”–Will Rogers.
“”[O]ur nation is facing a crisis of liberty if we do not control campaign expenditures. We
must prove that elective office is not for sale. We must convince the public that elected
officials are what James Madison intended us to be, agents of the sovereign people, not the
hired hands of rich givers, or what Madison called factions.””–Barry Goldwater
“Supreme Court opinion notwithstanding,
corporations are not defined as people under the Constitution, and free speech can
hardly be called free when only the rich are heard.” — Warren Rudman
Corporations have been considered people since the Roman empire. The root word corpus means “body”. The practice of incorporation is the source of the idea of a straw man. Indeed, a man made of straw was considered the physical body of the corporation.
We must convince the public that elected officials are what James Madison intended us to be, agents of the sovereign people, not the hired hands of rich givers, or what Madison called factions.
Ok, so why is that more important than the First Amendment?
So apparently Madison was anticipating the rise of Darth Soros. Smart man, and psychic, too!
” and free speech can
hardly be called free when only the rich are heard”
And what is it when only Democrat groups are allowed to speak?
Take it up with Senator Rudman.
I will take the subject up with anyone especially Obama and the Democrats who relentlessly seek to limit people’s speech especially those who disagree with them.
Democrats have sought to end AM talk radio, have Fox news taken off the air, prevent companies from defending themselves agaisnt Democrat attacks in the media and on the street (OWS), regularly prevent people from giving speeches, and use violence and physical intimidation in support of their political campaigns. And let’s not forget the use of the IRS and other government agencies to prevent people from expressing their views with the full protection of the first amendment and the federal government.
Democrats have no credibility left on free speech. You can take it up with Obama who has destroyed Democrat credibility on so many issues but it is a problem with the entire party not just the man who exlempifies their values in the oval office.
In one of their rare moments of sanity, they correctly realized what Citizens United was, a government attempt to restrict the free speech rights of a non-government entity.
Do I really have to go into this for you to realize the dangers of men with guns being able to specify how you can or can’t speak about things?
It should be obvious on its face that in no case should men with guns be “regulating” free speech of non-government entities.
Yes, I know, next you are going to bring up yelling fire in a theater. That’s what all lefties go for. Except that it is not illegal to yell fire in a theater as a standalone item. It is illegal to lie and cause a panic which leads to injury. That however, really has nothing to do with free speech. If it was illegal to yell fire in a theater the way lefties talk about it, then if there really was a fire, it would be illegal to inform people about it.
Also, Citizens United applies equally to unions. I hope you know that unions are corporations as well. A corporation is really nothing more than multiple people taking on a name for their group. A union, a church, and a rock band are all corporations. Which one of those should have to ask the government permission to speak or be treated differently in the tax code than lefty groups?
See, here is the issue. Leftists keep talking about equality, and yet they are completely willing to treat certain non-government entities differently under the law than other entities. This is because you basically ascribe to communist-think where it is the government’s job to “equalize with the force of law” rather than “treat all equally under the law”. You see, it is a perversion of equal treatment, and ends in the ruin of free countries.
This is why conservatives fight you so hard, up to and including shutting down 15% of the government for a couple of weeks (that’s right, 85% was still in business for all the talk of a shutdown). Conservatives know where this crap ends, where no one is free except the 1%, just like the Soviet Union and North Korea. See, if you take your philosophy to its logical end and create a communist country, despite all of your efforts you still have a 1% and a 99%.
It’s just, once you get to the end, the 1% is much more lethal and the 99% are all equally poor, enslaved or dead.
I think I’ll take my chances in a free country, and take the chance that a rich person can buy more airtime than a poor person.
illegal to inform people
I’d warn you about giving them ideas, but this basic idea has existed in them for as long as they’ve existed. Equal justice isn’t something they understand. They want ‘more equal’ justice.
I really should memorize this response. It’s very articulate. Thanks.
“This is why conservatives fight you so hard, up to and including shutting down 15% of the government for a couple of weeks (that’s right, 85% was still in business for all the talk of a shutdown). ”
Rand denies conservatives shutdown the government.
“Thus, the ACLU supports a comprehensive and meaningful system of public financing that would help create a level playing field for every qualified candidate. We support carefully drawn disclosure rules. We support reasonable limits on campaign contributions and we support stricter enforcement of existing bans on coordination between candidates and super PACs.“
And the point is what?
Citizens United was about none of those things you are quoting. It was about independent expenditures by third party organizations unconnected with a political candidate’s campaign.
So, if a nongovernment entity doesn’t donate to a campaign or coordinate with the campaign, then the government had no right or authority to stop that entity from speaking however it wishes.
This is the way it has to be in a free country, or else it is no longer free.
To libs (and not just dcguy), Citizens United is about pretty much everything EXCEPT what Citizens United was actually about.
Yeah., I mean it is not like they couldn’t read the first sentence of the wikipedia article on it or anything:
“Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 310 (2010), is a US constitutional law case, in which the United States Supreme Court held that the First Amendment prohibits the government from restricting political independent expenditures by corporations, associations, or labor unions.”
Yeah, I know, it’s wikipedia and all, but if you need a five-second lazy man’s resource, it’s there.
But, the kicker for me was when I found out that the ACLU supported it, one of the most leftist organizations around. If even they saw the danger in it, then I think that speaks for itself.
It wouldn’t matter how much was spent on a campaign if people actually cared. The information is available for free.
Liberals love the regulatory state because they perpetually fail to persuade. So if they cannot persuade people to do what liberals think ought to be done, they will force them through regulation and law.
By doing that, liberals fail to understand that they give up precious liberty which, someday they will deeply regret. They also fail to understand that the tremendous success that is the USA is due to the framework given by the Founders. There is nothing special about the US or the people that live here. It is the system which gave us our exceptional success.
Liberals do not understand that the tremendous wealth they wish to spread will dry up by the very act of forcibly spreading it.
Actually there’s a lot the liberals do not understand but these few things are the basics.
By doing that, liberals fail to understand that they give up precious liberty which, someday they will deeply regret.
Nice optimism there. I think rather they’ll continue to blame the usual suspects for their self-inflicted injuries.
“I think rather they’ll continue to blame the usual suspects for their self-inflicted injuries.”
Well I didn’t say who they would blame. I simply said that the outcome of destroying liberty is misery and they are going to feel it. You are right that a lot of them will remain stone-headed and not make the connection that has been illustrated to them countless times.
They are incapable of regrets… regret forces them to change alignment. Loss of liberty doesn’t bother them as long as you lose more.
I would point out to you that these people have never experienced the kind of oppression and suffering that comes with dictatorship. All their lives it’s been cushy and they think it will remain cushy no matter what harebrained, nutroll schemes they invoke.
You’ll note that people who came to the US from Eastern Europe after (roughly) the fall of the Berlin Wall are under no illusions about this government, where the actions of our government will lead to, nor what it will be like when they get there.
“By doing that, liberals fail to understand that they give up precious liberty which, someday they will deeply regret”
Um, Who created the TSA and DHS?
Um, who is continuing these departments?
A bipartisan vote of a split Congress, with pretty much every prominent Democrat then in office supporting. What was your point again?
And while we’re at it, who just spent the past five years expanding both agencies and gifting them with powers and authorities not in their original conception? Was that Boosh too?
“There’s nothing ‘liberal’ about them.”
And that’s why I prefer the more accurate label, “State-shtupper.”
“I remember when ‘liberal’ meant being generous with your own money.”–Will Rogers.
“”[O]ur nation is facing a crisis of liberty if we do not control campaign expenditures. We
must prove that elective office is not for sale. We must convince the public that elected
officials are what James Madison intended us to be, agents of the sovereign people, not the
hired hands of rich givers, or what Madison called factions.””–Barry Goldwater
“Supreme Court opinion notwithstanding,
corporations are not defined as people under the Constitution, and free speech can
hardly be called free when only the rich are heard.” — Warren Rudman
Corporations have been considered people since the Roman empire. The root word corpus means “body”. The practice of incorporation is the source of the idea of a straw man. Indeed, a man made of straw was considered the physical body of the corporation.
We must convince the public that elected officials are what James Madison intended us to be, agents of the sovereign people, not the hired hands of rich givers, or what Madison called factions.
Ok, so why is that more important than the First Amendment?
So apparently Madison was anticipating the rise of Darth Soros. Smart man, and psychic, too!
” and free speech can
hardly be called free when only the rich are heard”
And what is it when only Democrat groups are allowed to speak?
Take it up with Senator Rudman.
I will take the subject up with anyone especially Obama and the Democrats who relentlessly seek to limit people’s speech especially those who disagree with them.
Democrats have sought to end AM talk radio, have Fox news taken off the air, prevent companies from defending themselves agaisnt Democrat attacks in the media and on the street (OWS), regularly prevent people from giving speeches, and use violence and physical intimidation in support of their political campaigns. And let’s not forget the use of the IRS and other government agencies to prevent people from expressing their views with the full protection of the first amendment and the federal government.
Democrats have no credibility left on free speech. You can take it up with Obama who has destroyed Democrat credibility on so many issues but it is a problem with the entire party not just the man who exlempifies their values in the oval office.
dn-guy,
First of all, the ACLU supported the Citizens United decision: https://www.aclu.org/free-speech/aclu-and-citizens-united
In one of their rare moments of sanity, they correctly realized what Citizens United was, a government attempt to restrict the free speech rights of a non-government entity.
Do I really have to go into this for you to realize the dangers of men with guns being able to specify how you can or can’t speak about things?
It should be obvious on its face that in no case should men with guns be “regulating” free speech of non-government entities.
Yes, I know, next you are going to bring up yelling fire in a theater. That’s what all lefties go for. Except that it is not illegal to yell fire in a theater as a standalone item. It is illegal to lie and cause a panic which leads to injury. That however, really has nothing to do with free speech. If it was illegal to yell fire in a theater the way lefties talk about it, then if there really was a fire, it would be illegal to inform people about it.
Also, Citizens United applies equally to unions. I hope you know that unions are corporations as well. A corporation is really nothing more than multiple people taking on a name for their group. A union, a church, and a rock band are all corporations. Which one of those should have to ask the government permission to speak or be treated differently in the tax code than lefty groups?
See, here is the issue. Leftists keep talking about equality, and yet they are completely willing to treat certain non-government entities differently under the law than other entities. This is because you basically ascribe to communist-think where it is the government’s job to “equalize with the force of law” rather than “treat all equally under the law”. You see, it is a perversion of equal treatment, and ends in the ruin of free countries.
This is why conservatives fight you so hard, up to and including shutting down 15% of the government for a couple of weeks (that’s right, 85% was still in business for all the talk of a shutdown). Conservatives know where this crap ends, where no one is free except the 1%, just like the Soviet Union and North Korea. See, if you take your philosophy to its logical end and create a communist country, despite all of your efforts you still have a 1% and a 99%.
It’s just, once you get to the end, the 1% is much more lethal and the 99% are all equally poor, enslaved or dead.
I think I’ll take my chances in a free country, and take the chance that a rich person can buy more airtime than a poor person.
illegal to inform people
I’d warn you about giving them ideas, but this basic idea has existed in them for as long as they’ve existed. Equal justice isn’t something they understand. They want ‘more equal’ justice.
I really should memorize this response. It’s very articulate. Thanks.
“This is why conservatives fight you so hard, up to and including shutting down 15% of the government for a couple of weeks (that’s right, 85% was still in business for all the talk of a shutdown). ”
Rand denies conservatives shutdown the government.
“Thus, the ACLU supports a comprehensive and meaningful system of public financing that would help create a level playing field for every qualified candidate. We support carefully drawn disclosure rules. We support reasonable limits on campaign contributions and we support stricter enforcement of existing bans on coordination between candidates and super PACs.“
And the point is what?
Citizens United was about none of those things you are quoting. It was about independent expenditures by third party organizations unconnected with a political candidate’s campaign.
So, if a nongovernment entity doesn’t donate to a campaign or coordinate with the campaign, then the government had no right or authority to stop that entity from speaking however it wishes.
This is the way it has to be in a free country, or else it is no longer free.
To libs (and not just dcguy), Citizens United is about pretty much everything EXCEPT what Citizens United was actually about.
Yeah., I mean it is not like they couldn’t read the first sentence of the wikipedia article on it or anything:
“Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 310 (2010), is a US constitutional law case, in which the United States Supreme Court held that the First Amendment prohibits the government from restricting political independent expenditures by corporations, associations, or labor unions.”
Yeah, I know, it’s wikipedia and all, but if you need a five-second lazy man’s resource, it’s there.
But, the kicker for me was when I found out that the ACLU supported it, one of the most leftist organizations around. If even they saw the danger in it, then I think that speaks for itself.
It wouldn’t matter how much was spent on a campaign if people actually cared. The information is available for free.
Liberals love the regulatory state because they perpetually fail to persuade. So if they cannot persuade people to do what liberals think ought to be done, they will force them through regulation and law.
By doing that, liberals fail to understand that they give up precious liberty which, someday they will deeply regret. They also fail to understand that the tremendous success that is the USA is due to the framework given by the Founders. There is nothing special about the US or the people that live here. It is the system which gave us our exceptional success.
Liberals do not understand that the tremendous wealth they wish to spread will dry up by the very act of forcibly spreading it.
Actually there’s a lot the liberals do not understand but these few things are the basics.
By doing that, liberals fail to understand that they give up precious liberty which, someday they will deeply regret.
Nice optimism there. I think rather they’ll continue to blame the usual suspects for their self-inflicted injuries.
“I think rather they’ll continue to blame the usual suspects for their self-inflicted injuries.”
Well I didn’t say who they would blame. I simply said that the outcome of destroying liberty is misery and they are going to feel it. You are right that a lot of them will remain stone-headed and not make the connection that has been illustrated to them countless times.
They are incapable of regrets… regret forces them to change alignment. Loss of liberty doesn’t bother them as long as you lose more.
I would point out to you that these people have never experienced the kind of oppression and suffering that comes with dictatorship. All their lives it’s been cushy and they think it will remain cushy no matter what harebrained, nutroll schemes they invoke.
You’ll note that people who came to the US from Eastern Europe after (roughly) the fall of the Berlin Wall are under no illusions about this government, where the actions of our government will lead to, nor what it will be like when they get there.
“By doing that, liberals fail to understand that they give up precious liberty which, someday they will deeply regret”
Um, Who created the TSA and DHS?
Um, who is continuing these departments?
A bipartisan vote of a split Congress, with pretty much every prominent Democrat then in office supporting. What was your point again?
And while we’re at it, who just spent the past five years expanding both agencies and gifting them with powers and authorities not in their original conception? Was that Boosh too?
The tea party, obviously. /sarc
“Um, Who created the TSA and DHS?”
Why, a squishy RINO created those.
No Conservative would have built those.
Next question?