One Political PlazaSM - Home of politics
Home | Political Digest | Active Topics | Newest Pictures | Search | Login | Register | Help
Posts for: straightUp
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 341 next>>
Dec 18, 2017 04:58:06   #
PeterS wrote:
You are foulest bit#hes aren't. Why don't you crawl back into the sewer you crawled out of...

Is he suggesting that Michelle Obama is a man? LOL

They really do come up with some funny stuff, and they get so worked up over the stupidest things, like whether or not someone is a man or a woman. Someone was telling me that a lot of that stems from the frustrations of their personal lives. They need something to lash at and politics provides all the targets they could ever hope for. I just wish they wouldn't vote... I mean really, for their own sake as well ours.
 
Dec 18, 2017 04:44:45   #
pafret wrote:
Sometimes I have to marvel at how confused and ignorant those of you on the left can be.

Confusion and ignorance is not limited to one side of the political spectrum pafret.

pafret wrote:

Communism, Fascism, Nazism are all leftist, socialist, totalitarian forms of government.

So I guess you're an example of confusion and ignorance ;)

Let's take this one step at a time...

Communism is indeed socialist and therefore leftist, but I'm betting you have no clue why. So I'll tell you. Socialism aims to give workers a share in the means of production that's why. Democratic societies will typically implement this through government ownership, which means the workers, who are also citizens, will have some voice in matters pertaining to the means of production.

But is communism totalitarian? No, it's not. In fact totalitarianism defeats the entire purpose of socialism (and therefore communism) because totalitarian systems deny the voices of citizens. Now, the reason why so many people like yourself *think* communism is totalitarian is because instead of reading Karl Marx to understand the theory they associate the word "communism" with it's failed implementations, such as the Soviet Union and People's Republic of China.

On the other hand, Nazism is a German implementation of fascism and fascism is on the extreme right. Obviously, you don't why this is the case either. So. I'll tell you. Fascism is deeply nationalist and often racist, two conditions based on the exclusion of others, using the Nazi example, these others would be Jews, Romano, Homosexuals and any other ethnic group considered to be inferior to the "master race". It's this exclusion that makes fascism a right-wing ideology.

Is Nazism socialist? Well, Nazism rose at a time where EVERYONE was socialist. The world was dragging it's ass through a global depression, where people didn't have enough to eat and they knew capitalism was to blame. Socialism was a promise of a better world and every political movement that wanted to tap into populism made socialist promises, including FDR in America where socialism reached it's peak popularity. Here's a little fact for you... Every German party competing with the Nazis was making socialist promises.

So you may ask.. How can Nazism be right-wing AND socialist if I just said socialism is leftist? Well things can get complex, which is why so many people get confused. But I'll try to make this as a simple as possible. Socialism is an economic system, not a political one. So in theory, you can have a left-leaning socialist system inside the political structure of a right-leaning government, in which case the workers that are NOT excluded by the right-wing political system are included in the process of governing the means of production.

As it happened, the reality of socialism in Nazi Germany was never as big as it's promise and once the democracy (another leftist concept) was replaced by totalitarianism, socialism was hardly evident at all. The Nazis were far more capitalist than socialist. In fact many American capitalists including the Rockefellers and the Bush family expressed admiration for Hitler's economic views and developed business ties with his regime.

What the Nazis are far more famous for is their ethnic, and frequently violent, purges... which is extremely right-wing, which is what any encyclopedia or text book will tell you.

Fascism, Nazism are all leftist, socialist, totalitarian forms of government.

pafret wrote:

While the right may be reactionary, the further right you go, the further into anarchy you are immersed.

Well, you're partially correct. Anarchy is the extreme end of Libertarianism but completely unrelated to the left-right perspective. Here's a chart that I'm sure you've seen before (many versions of the same thing) that illustrates what I mean...

Notice how some of the political leaders line up... pretty much opposite to what you are suggesting and it makes sense too, at least in a somewhat democratic context such as our Republic because the farther right you go the more people you exclude, therefore the more value placed on the authoritarian approach to control. This is why you see the red dots representing Republicans lined up farther to the right AND closer to the authoritarian extreme. Some of the people missing from this chart are Bill Mahr a self-professed Libertarian AND very left and even more to the point, Noam Chomsky, a self-professed anarchist and very, very left.

pafret wrote:

Right of center are Libertarians and to their right are all of the militias and reactionaries.

If you're following the left-right spectrum, right of center would be the moderate conservatives... some people call them RINOs and to the right of them are the racists and fascists. I'm not sure what you mean by reactionaries, it seems to me agitated people on all sides react and as for militias, there are none. There are people who imagine themselves as militias but they're more like wannabes and I certainly wouldn't want to rely on them in this day and age, they will be the first ones eliminated.

pafret wrote:

Neocons are a horse of a totally different color, they are warmongers, haters of humanity, secret skulkers engaged in subversive overthrow of the government, probably through military coup d'etat.

Neocons are globalists and they don't need to overthrow the government, they already own the government. We will know when that changes when our military withdraws from the Middle East and Central Asia.

pafret wrote:

Why should any form of speech be considered hateful? If someone's speech offends you, don't listen or read it.

That's always been my position too. I have always held that it's my choice to be offended or not. But I don't have to be offended to recognize hate. I often respond the posts here that claim all Muslims are horrible bloodthirsty people. I'm not a Muslim and I certainly don't feel offended by such statements but I can still see how hateful it is. I'm glad you brought this up though because your statement ties into what I've said about the left-right perspective... I've noticed among conservatives, especially those who lean heavy to the right, a certain gravitation to self-interest. By suggesting all I have to do is ignore the hate speech to make it go away, you are suggesting that I am the only person I need to be concerned with. I see this assumption at the root of so many arguments from the right that I can't help but think it's part of the exclusion culture. I think it's such an ingrained part of right-wing culture that people don't even realize how self-centered they're being. I'm not like that. When I read a statement that denigrates Muslims or anyone else for that matter, I engage because I don't see the world revolving around me. I see the world as something I share with others and that is a very leftist attitude that I really don't see on the right... at all.

pafret wrote:

There is no line to be drawn; once certain words or speech are forbidden the list of forbidden speech rises asymptotically until one can say nothing without giving grievous offense to some easily scandalized twit.

Yes, I know what you mean... Look at my signature... (the quote at the bottom of all my posts) It's in direct relation to the whole concept of censoring language. I'm an advocate of free language, I think ALL words should be permitted even the ones we have to misspell to avoid being banned from the site, like f*ck and sh!t. I've been confronting the language police for decades and ya know, they are ALL conservatives. So how does the left fit into this?

Well, here's the basic difference.. Liberals tend to focus on intent, rather than actual words. You can use any words imaginable and as long as you aren't offending anyone liberals aren't going to care. Conservatives tend to get more hung up on etiquette, where the use of certain words are thought to be repulsive. I'm sure you can find exceptions, but that the general pattern that I've seen over the years.

pafret wrote:

The left's approach to others is always, to demand the Poll Parrot echo, of whatever is politically correct at the moment. You are a pack of Penguins moving in lock step.

That's all perception there my friend. Trust me, hardly a day goes by where I'm not seeing packs of right-wing penguins all screaming in unison about what those liberals are doing now. All it takes is Fox News to chirp and instantly the entire right-wing population is squawking with them. We're a media connected society pafret, this is normal behavior and there's no way you can make this just about the left anymore than I can make just about the right. I think we both this.

pafret wrote:

Hitler hated Jews because they were a convenient scapegoat. He used their success and affluence as an indicator that they were ripping off the German people and thus depriving them of their fair share of wealth. Sound familiar?

He was leveraging the existing stereotypes to give the persecution momentum. The point I made about how the communists were crossing the national front, was actually stated in his book, Mein Kampf.

pafret wrote:

Communism is the credo that all workers share equally in the wealth produced from the means of production, which are owned by the State. Jews were castigated because they accumulated all of the wealth, so were they communists or plutocrats?

What makes you think all Jews have to be the same? Yes, some of the most powerful financiers of capitalism were Jews, and they have a reputation with money, but it's also a very well-known fact that Jews also played a huge role in the Communist Revolution. Trotsky was Jewish, Lenin was Jewish, Stalin was half Jewish and the only true communist systems in the world today are in Israel.

pafret wrote:

They were an easy target; the blood libel had been used in Europe since the time of Christ to confiscate their wealth and or drive them from their homes and properties. Anti-semitism has existed through the ages, first with Christians then with Moslems and finally as a convenient rally point for totalitarian dictators such as Der Fuhrer. It was the conflict of politics fueled by religious hatred

For many people it was, but not so much for Hitler, who wasn't really a religion man. For him Jews offended his sense nationalism.

pafret wrote:

Fascism is the control of all of the means of production while allowing private ownership but again benefiting all of the people equally.

LOL - where do get this stuff? Alex Jones? Fascism isn't economic system, pafret. It's not even a theory. Fascism is a retrospective description of any system that emulates what Mussolini was doing in Italy.

pafret wrote:

This is an obvious impossibility. Nazism is Socialism, which means government control of all production and everyone on the dole.

OK... let's talk about impossibility here... How can production happen if everyone is on the dole? This is the first element of stupidity in the right-wing view of socialism. Secondly, as I have already stated, socialism in Nazi Germany was more promise than reality. The reality of Nazism was far more capitalist, but aside from creating a war market, the Nazis didn't have much to do with that. The focus of Nazism was far more centered on political ideology characterized by strong nationalism, an extreme level of authoritarianism, corporatism, militarization and hostility towards both liberalism and Marxism. These are characteristics common to developments in Italy under the Fascist Party and a few years later in Germany under the Nazi Party, which is why Nazis were considered fascists.

pafret wrote:

We in the United States are headed this way and it is the Conservatives, who in the words of Bill Buckley, stand athwart history and yell, "Stop".

LOL - I got some news for ya... the United States has had the largest socialists systems in the world since WW2. It's hard for me to fathom how a grown adult can look at our system and say... we're "heading" toward socialism.

I hope that one day you might decide to step away from the squawking parrots and do some independent study on this stuff. I don't want to offend you but the arguments you are making are the same arguments I've heard from kids in elementary school. They are the same basic arguments I've been hearing for 30 years. The problem is the world is changing and the cold war propaganda that served up pretty much all your arguments is becoming a detriment to the American people because it distracts us with all these decoys... socialism, Muslims, LGBT, immigrants, communism, terrorists... None of these things present any real threat to America compared to the one thing that is well on its way to enslaving our children. The plutocracy.

pafret wrote:

You want to make an argument out of name-calling, feel free. But, learn what the differences and similarities between these isms are before you ascribe your traits to conservatives.

LOL - Suggesting that someone learn calculus isn't going to make the conversation any easier if you think calculus is a pop-tart.
Dec 18, 2017 00:30:48   #
Loki wrote:
That must be why there are so many Conservative speakers welcomed at UC Berkeley.

Actually, there are. I've already written about the scam the right plays on Berkeley... They work with the conservative student body (which is permitted in Berkeley) to schedule right wing provocateurs. Not just conservative speakers, but right-wing provocateurs... as in confrontational agitators like the one who calls himself the Dangerous Faggot. So Berkeley, being the champion of free speech that it has always been, makes arrangements for security at a tremendous cost. $500,000 to secure the safety of the Dangerous Faggot so he can say a few words, sing a song and leave. Other's like Ann Coulter who, seriously has no other objective but to enrage people, played a similar game. She had no intention of coming to Berkeley but she pretended to and demanded that she be scheduled on a day where security wasn't available. So Berkeley suggested a different where they could but Coulter already had what she wanted and went back to her networks to bitch about how Berkeley wouldn't let her speak. She knows that people like you won't even notice all the conservative speakers that did speak, only that they "refused" to let Coulter speak.

The real issue that people like you have with Berkeley is that the school is open to ALL views and you can't stand that. Face it, you can't tolerate a school that will hear the views of socialists or Muslims. Personally, I think it's disgusting how people like you attack schools that are trying to help students build better futures, just because they support the freedom of speech which you obviously don't.

Loki wrote:

The left only promotes inclusion of those people and philosophies with which they agree.

That's a lie. The left accepts all views and all cultures. What often happens is a right-wing faction will try to exclude a view THEY don't like and the left will oppose that exclusion, which the right will immediately flag as an intolerance. I can think of many examples. For instance, prayers in school. Conservatives frequently try to mandate prayer in school as a way to dominate the culture. Liberals feel obligated to enforce the 1st Amendment (which the right secretly despises) saying that such mandates are unconstitutional and what does the right-wing media do? They say the liberals are attacking Christians.

So, here's some advice... if you want the left to stop attacking Christians, tell the Christians to stop attacking everyone else. it's that simple.

Loki wrote:

In this they are no different from the right, just more self-righteous about it.

We ALL appear self-righteous to our opponents, Loki... Now, I might agree that the difference between political parties are slight (although that's changing) but the culture difference between the left and the right couldn't be any more dramatic.
Dec 17, 2017 19:44:22   #
badbobby wrote:
as you said s u it was the Post
now that being said
the whole story has now been proven a hoax

No, it hasn't. LOL. So, is this one of those "say it and wish" things? Where's your proof?

badbobby wrote:

you are either confused or else just don't know what you are posting is leftist lies

My arguments prove otherwise. I have provided links, insight and rational deduction. All you have is "because I say so". I did a quick online scan for updates on the story and as of right now, there has been no proof that the story is false. You just don't want to accept it. Here... try this... Close your eyes, stick your fingers in your ears and say "la, la, la, la, la..." LOL
Dec 17, 2017 12:04:08   #
PeterS wrote:
I just ran this list by my wife who teaches high school English and the only word's banned are "retarded" (that thanks to Palin and her retard) and tranny, and raghead. This isn't Liberal academics that banned these but any words used to denigrate others have always been banned from academics. To denigrate others students need to come to a political message board or listen to conservative radio--either of which will suffice...

Sometimes it's hard to tell with these folks, if they actually understand the difference between banning words to obstruct hate speech and banning words to obstruct the flow of critical information or if they intentionally ignore that context.

I'll tell ya one thing I know from first hand experience though, right here on this site. It's the conservatives that get all worked up when I use offensive words, not liberals. The admins have actually removed a post because I used the word "stupid" It wasn't even a direct insult, I was describing an idea not a person. The other poster I was responding to denied the suggestion that he reported me, but it's hard to believe that the admin would just happen to see that I used the word "stupid" and removed the post.

These people can be pretty weaselly when it comes to double-standards. They make such a big deal out of politically-correct censorship acting like liberals are some great obstruction to free-speech, but every legislative effort toward censorship that I have EVER encountered is pushed from the right, not the left.

...and this isn't surprising. The right-wing is always focused on exclusion. The left wing, always focused on inclusion. You can find this pattern anywhere in the world. ISIS in the middle-east for instance is focused on excluding all cultures but their own. They are a right-wing culture, with all the typical motives, such as the appeal to God, the claim to land and the unchecked use of guns. The American right of course confesses an intolerance toward ISIS but that isn't surprising either... If you had ten groups that can't tolerate each other they would all be right-wing advocates of exclusion. So "left/right" isn't so much a matter of "sides" as is it a contrast in the "approach to others".

Hitler, as always, provides a great example... One of the reasons he hated Jews so much is because of their association with communists, which he saw as a major reason for the German defeat in WW1. He saw the communists in Germany associating with the communists in Russia, which he felt compromised the German front against Russia. So while the leftist communists were chanting "workers of the world unite" nationalist Hitler was calling that a violation of national integrity and of course this led to the Gleichschaltung... a right-wing effort to exclude all but one culture.

Getting back to banning words... if the left has a problem with specific words, you can be assured the concern is over the some form of offending or excluding "others". I would say that any form of censorship designed to obstruct the flow of ideas and even facts are intended to exclude "foreign" perspectives and are therefore the exclusive domain of the right.
Dec 16, 2017 23:09:06   #
Blade_Runner wrote:
First you bitch at me for posting links, now your bitching at me for not posting links, WTF is it with you?

I say the same thing about links every single time. Use them to support your argument not in place of your argument. If you make a disputable claim, you need a link to support it and if you post a bunch of links without making a specific argument then your wasting my time because you're asking that I read all these links and I don't even know what your point is.

So... make a specific argument.

If your logic is good you won't even need a link. If you're claiming a disputable fact then you probably do.

Blade_Runner wrote:

Since you are the brightest bulb in this room surely you must have some idea what is going on in our public schools.
Princeton HR department: Don’t use word ‘man’

Saying that I must have some idea what's going on in our schools is pretty vague. I wouldn't call it an argument or even point. But since I remember what you were ranting about earlier I figure I'd make an exception and look at one of the links... The first one..

Well, two paragraphs in and I already see disconnects. First of all, Princeton isn't a public school, it's a private school. Secondly, the elimination of the word "man" is something that the HR department specifically is imposing on themselves, not anyone else.

So it's exactly the same as going to restaurant for a burger and screaming at some chick for ordering a salad because you think that means YOU have to order a salad. Just order the burger and stop worrying about the choices other people make for themselves. I personally wouldn't take the word "man" out of my lexicon for the sake of being more "gender inclusive" but I'm not going to freak out if someone else decides to. It's a free country right?
 
Dec 16, 2017 22:32:12   #
11r20 wrote:
11r20 wrote:

nannystate propaganda is disseminated by lib media to perpetuate the welfare state.



No, it's what I say Tonto, and I also say the CDC is responsible for promotin the fluoride cocktail
that's nothin more than 300 cancer causin carcinogins pumped through the water depts
of low income districts...the demonrat's cant have their 'LBJ, Great Society' ""Pet Project Dindu's""
feeling too energetic or they'd start runnin off the reservation.

Now out here where I live, we have confederate rednek blacks,rednek mexicans,even rednek indians from india;
and we all git along.
11r20 wrote: br br nannystate propaganda is disse... (show quote)

That's nice.
Dec 16, 2017 22:29:06   #
pafret wrote:
I tried four different translators and it makes a difference if you include the exclamation point.

Interesting.

pafret wrote:

There is still a difference with translations as vanilla as "phasing' and "standardization" but the closest came from the Collins dictionary: "The enforcement of standardization and the elimination of all opposition within the political, economic, and cultural institutions of a state."

That seems about right.

pafret wrote:

From my Oxford Duden German Dictionary: Gleich -- of equal importance or status, Gleichschalten -- Force or bring into line, Schaltung -- Manual gear change or circuit or wiring system

The Collins interpretation is most in line with the tenor of this post.

Even the DC Circuit translation makes sense when you think about how direct current flows in one direction as opposed to AC which alternates. But I agree, your Collins interpretation is more closely related to the topic of the post.

To be honest, I don't understand all the fuss about translation. My use of the word was a reference to a historical event. If I make a reference to the Great Depression would you bring up all the references to psychology that a translator might bring up? According to Wikipedia, Gleichschaltung (the historical event) was the process of Nazification by which Nazi Germany successively established a system of totalitarian control and coordination over all aspects of society, "from the economy and trade associations to the media, culture and education".

So that's the reference, I'm making.

pafret wrote:

I read your article and Kelly did not assert that her budget was rejected because of language.

very last paragraph...

Kelly told the analysts that “certain words” in the CDC’s budget drafts were being sent back to the agency for correction. Three words that had been flagged in these drafts were “vulnerable,” “entitlement” and “diversity.” Kelly told the group the ban on the other words had been conveyed verbally.

That seems pretty clear to me. Budget allocations don't happen without budget drafts first being accepted and if the Department of HHS is sending back budget drafts to be "corrected" by removing certain words, how is that NOT just what I said it was?

pafret wrote:

Nor was this rejection attributed to any other researcher.

How do you know? The WP was only covering one case. Just because other cases aren't included in the story doesn't mean they don't happen.

pafret wrote:

The article identified her as the chairperson of a meeting where the word-ban guidelines were discussed and she did not attribute them to any particular source.

She doesn't have to. She said she was relaying the information. We all know that information didn't come from Bob's Bar and Grill. It came from the farther up the chain of command, which for the CDC is the Department of HHS and THAT department falls under the direct command of Eric Hargain who is "acting" Secretary since the person Trump nominated for the job got caught up in scandal (like all the rest of his nominees).

So I really don't see your point here... It seems you are trying to say that I have no proof that the order was issued by Trump himself but I never made that claim. If you noticed I started off my post with a reference to the Trump Administration, which includes the Department of HHS.

Also, I've had 10 months to observe the effects of the Trump Administration on the Executive Branch of government and there are very clear patterns regarding the removal of information that I can see first hand. The article also touches on that. Finally, with the WP breaking this story, it's hard to believe that this hasn't come to Trump's attention and yet he has offered no correction. I think it's fair to assume that even if he isn't a part of the enforcing the ban, he is at least aware of it and approves.

pafret wrote:

This information came from "ANONYMOUS", the Washington Oracle from whom all tidings emanate. Other CDC sources ( Again unidentified) confirmed that there is a list of verboten words.

The article says the source was a CDC analyst, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the person was not authorized to speak publicly, which isn't surprising given the gag orders so prevalent within the Trump Administration, but the HHS response since the story broke pretty much confirms that the story wasn't just fabricated.

pafret wrote:

The article starts off with the strong assertion that the "Trump Administration" is prohibiting CDC people from using certain words. Instead of naming names the article immediately wimps out and asserts "Policy Analysts" at the CDC "were told."

What is Alison Kelly then? A car brand? I think your either wishful or confused or maybe both but the WP didn't get the whole story from an anonymous source, they mentioned a few additional things from anonymous sources but the main part of the story was about a meeting led by Alison Kelly. Actual event... real name. I understand you want to cast doubt on the story but your nit-picking is no match for the overwhelming context. Like I said 10 months is plenty of time for people to notice the signs. Since Trump took over there have been countless reports on information removal and gag orders. This is not a surprising story, this has in fact become typical.

pafret wrote:

Not who told them, not what the hell do policy analysts have to do with science and medical research or even what policies they are analyzing.

What the hell does any of that have to do with banning words from documents? Do you really need a scientific consensus on what removing the word "fetus" from a budget draft means? Man, you are streeeetching...

pafret wrote:

The whole article is propaganda and it veracity is debatable at best.

Sorry p... it's too late for that angle... A few hours ago ABC News requested a comment from the Department of HHS... and they got one. The HSS issued a statement that did NOT deny any part of the WP story. If the story was bogus they would have. So that pretty much confirms it.

Instead, they suggested a "mischaracterization" which is a clever but well-known rhetorical technique for suggesting an error that doesn't actually exist. They assured ABC that they encourage the use of outcome and evidence data in program evaluations as if that was the issue being questioned, which it wasn't. The WP reported the banning of certain words in the budget drafts not the banning of evidence or research.

pafret wrote:

It certainly does not constitute an indictment of the Trump "Administration"

Maybe not by itself, but I think it contributes to the distrust the American people are developing toward an increasingly unpopular president.

pafret wrote:

Altering scientific data or reports by insisting that the precise words not be used is hardly to be equated with the popular outrage that the knee benders have engendered.

I agree... the "knee benders" aren't interfering with critical information that we rely on. People who are upset about the "knee benders" only have themselves to blame for being intolerant. But hampering the communication of data related to conditions that threaten the health and welfare of the American people is a million times worse. The NFL is entertainment pafret, the CDC is critical. You should really try to gain some sense of context on this.

pafret wrote:

However, consider the enormous number of OPP posts proposing firing and worse for those players. At the minimum there is a boycott severely affecting the revenues being drawn by the owners of those teams. This in your lexicography is no doubt equated with suppression of free speech,

It doesn't look like the owners are really loosing much and because the outrage is 100% hot air, it probably won't even last that long.

pafret wrote:

Whatever manner is used to establish corporate policies is of no import.

That's pretty much what I said. YOU were the one acting like a policy can't be real without verifying the name of a person who suggested it.

pafret wrote:

Policies must be communicated to the employee labor pool. They are usually communicated in writing because they are ordinarily too long for oral presentation. There is no question as to where these policies are derived, your employer wants it that way. I suggest you go back and read your article because nowhere did it say the Dept of HHS established that as policy or told Kelly that this was the case. Kelly “passed on” the information but it never identified from whom was the information obtained. We do not "know that Alison Kelly (CDC) was told by the Department of Heath and Human Services" etc.
br Policies must be communicated to the employee... (show quote)

Actually it did. Right here... "Kelly told the analysts that “certain words” in the CDC’s budget drafts were being sent back to the agency for correction." the agency *IS* the Department of HHS. The CDC doesn't belong to any other agency. Now, I can't help you if you can't put two and two together.

pafret wrote:

“According to the article that I guess you didn't read,” Alison Kelly did not submit a budget nor did she claim any other person submitted a budget and had difficulties over language. Read your own article and stop filling in with your wishful thinking.

"Kelly told the analysts that “certain words” in the CDC’s budget drafts were being sent back to the agency for correction." What part of that do you not understand?

pafret wrote:

The constitution recognizes our right to free speech; there can be no policy that contravenes this. The Constitution is the law of the land, not policies.

That's a very common misunderstanding. I assume it stems from the fact that the Constitution trumps any conflicting law at the state or local level so people just automatically assume it trumps any rule no matter what kind of rule it is or where it comes from, but it doesn't. Go ahead read the 1st Amendment. The entire thing is one single sentence that starts out with "Congress shall make no law..." It says NOTHING about department policies in the Executive Branch or anywhere else.

pafret wrote:

To those who consider Trump to be Satan incarnate, nothing he ever does will be normal or good. All evils are lodged at his door and this ridiculous knee jerk antagonism is counterproductive in determining whether any good is being derived from his actions.

Aw... is widdle Donny being picked on?

pafret wrote:

This of us who voted for him did so precisely because he was unwilling to accept the status quo and insisted that he and we can do something about that.

While those of us that did our homework didn't fall for the bullshit.

pafret wrote:

As far as your remarks on LGBTQ whatevers I find it remarkable that less than three percent of the population is permitted to lead the 97 % around with a ring in its nose. It is a mark of the insanity of the times.

I think it's more like 30% (about the size of the deplorables) who feel like they're being led around by a ring in the nose because they allow themselves to get so wound up over people being different. I'm in that other 67% who are entirely unaffected by LGBTQ.
Dec 16, 2017 16:49:39   #
11r20 wrote:
I'm quite slim thank ya, but have noticed all the 400lb dindu's vote D.

400 lbs would indicate a clinical problem so yeah, they probably do vote Democrat because they know Republicans would just as soon watch them die. But obesity starts at 20% overweight (that's when it becomes unhealthy) and is mostly caused by overeating and physical inactivity. And yes, there are more obese Americans per capita than any other country in the world.

Now, there's not a lot of data linking obesity directly to party affiliation but the geographical information is abundant and clearly points to the Red States being home to the vast majority of America's fatties. It doesn't take much of leap from there to say Republicans are probably the biggest fatties over all.



So is this why Republicans don't have a problem shutting up the CDC? Because they're tired of hearing how fat they are?
Dec 16, 2017 16:00:37   #
11r20 wrote:
wasn't this the same CDC that said all muricans was Fat?((laughin))

They were confronting the dangers of obesity. And yes, compared to everyone else in the world, Americans ARE fat and more people die in America from obesity than any other country in the world.

11r20 wrote:

nannystate propaganda is disseminated by lib media to perpetuate the welfare state.

...according to the propaganda spewing from the liars of right-wing media.

11r20 wrote:

now where's my ho ho's...

Probably stuck in the folds of your fat belly. Try rolling to the side.
Dec 16, 2017 15:41:29   #
Blade_Runner wrote:
I'm not going to look it up, but I'm sure the Germans have a phrase or expression for people so obsessed with sex in all its perverse manifestations that they use it as a political weapon.

Honestly, I can't even make sense out of what you're saying here.

Blade_Runner wrote:

I don't suppose it would be politically correct to mention the long list of words, phrases, and expressions that liberal academics have banned in public schools and universities. Such as "crazy," "insane," "retarded," "gay," "tyranny," "gypped," "illegal alien," "fag," "ghetto", "raghead," "I want to die," "that test raped me", "skill set," "enhanced interrogation," "derp," "lame," "invalid," "Mr.," "Mrs.," and "Ms," "freshman," "girl," "MAN", "policeman," "fireman," "mailman," congressman," "mankind," "man-made, " and other compound words that include "man". This is the short list.
br I don't suppose it would be politically correc... (show quote)

I don't know of any such bans. Maybe you can enlighten me. Unless you're just lying.

Blade_Runner wrote:

Then there are the bans on "Bible", "Jesus," "Christian," and praying in school except for ablutions and oblations to Allah. If you have a Qu'ran and a prayer rug, you are cool, if you have a Bible and a crucifix, you are a dangerous extremist.

OK... obviously you have a stick up your ass. The perception that Muslims are unfairly favored by libs is utter bullshit. Look, you're more than welcome to present facts (with sources) or logical arguments, but if you're just going bark like a dog I'm going to ignore you.
 
Dec 16, 2017 15:28:15   #
saltwind 78 wrote:
straightUp, This is as crazy as crazy gets. The only thing that is crazier is the fact that nobody in the CDC is protesting this idiocy.

Unfortunately, the CDC has little choice. There is no constitutional basis for them to protest because the censorship does not involve law. Trump has been failing miserably at law. I don't know if there has ever been a president that went through his first year without signing a single law. So, all of Trump's actions have been limited to the policies of the Executive Branch over which he has complete control. And I guess because it's his only recourse he has been abusing that authority to sabotage the agencies by threatening their funding and this is exactly what what he is doing to the CDC. So the CDC can either comply with his dictates or go without funding and shut down their services.

saltwind 78 wrote:

CNN interviewed several former journalists, pundits and former Trump people and what they all agreed on was that the Donald doesn't like to hear bad news. This is related to that fact.

I've heard that too... Apparently, in his daily briefing his advisers include issues related to Russia in their reports but they don't vocalize it in the meetings for fear of upsetting Trump. I guess we got to expect that if we're going to be electing spoiled brats to office.
Dec 16, 2017 14:56:55   #
pafret wrote:
I found it interesting that when I saw the title, I used IM Translator to get the word's meaning in English. This is what the translator says it means: "DC circuit!”

I just tried it and it translated to Gleichschaltung to "Forcing into line". Maybe you didn't do it right.

pafret wrote:

While the same information can be communicated in other words, the censorship has achieved the desired effect because just as the wordsmith can say he didn't mean any of those words, the reader now has to infer that this is what was meant. Brevity is clarity; the use of circumlocutions introduces confusion and uncertainty in the reader and impedes effective communication. This is the intent; forbidding the use of certain words is a major step in controlling truth. Big Brother is tightening the noose; reality is what the government says it is.
br While the same information can be communicated... (show quote)

I do agree with you, that brevity is clarity, which is the point of an extensive vocabulary and taking words away from the vocabulary does impede the efficiency of language. I was being positive about this by pointing out the ability for many people to communicate the same ideas using alternate expressions, but you're right, for many others such articulation is more difficult to write OR read. I think its pretty obvious that Trump's regime is focused on the less literate people, who have become his base. As long as his regime commands the attitudes of a base large enough to win elections, the more educated groups will matter less and censorship becomes a validated strategy.

pafret wrote:

Is it not remarkable that there is no single person who can be assigned responsibility for issuing such an order?

Not really. Maybe you haven't worked for a large organization before, but in my corporate environment I have to abide by lots of rules that are just considered corporate policy. We don't ask which person was responsible for each rule because it doesn't matter. The fact is, policies are often ratified by committee, not dictated by individuals.

We know that Alison Kelly (CDC) was told by the Department of Heath and Human Services not to use those words as a matter of HHS policy. We also know that the CDC falls under the Department of HHS, which itself falls under the Executive Branch. We also know that since Trump has taken over the Executive Branch many of the departments under his control have been removing critical information from their records, polices and websites related to subjects they don't want us to think about or know about.

pafret wrote:

How do the researchers know that penalties will be imposed if they don't follow the dictates?

Well, according to the article that I guess you didn't read, Alison Kelly was submitting a budget request to the HHS and it was refused BECAUSE of the words. So to get the money to research the threat of disease they had to remove the verboten words. This is an approach Trump is becoming famous for as someone who can't seem to get the democratic support to legislate, so he puts conditions on funding.

pafret wrote:

Where are the guardians of the constitution who say you cannot suppress free speech?

The Constitution only applies to laws not policies.

pafret wrote:

This issue is not the same as the Trump administration doing all of these freedom-suppressing actions.

Clearly, it is... one of many examples in fact.

pafret wrote:

I would suspect that this is exactly what Trump does not want. Instead it is the entrenched bureaucracy, imposing leftist political correctness, on other government agencies.

Wow... I don't whether to call that wishful thinking or heavy delusion, but it shouldn't take THAT many brains cells to look at the list and notice there's nothing politically incorrect about ANY of the words mentioned. Yeah, liberals are in an uproar over words like diversity. LOL - get real.

Besides, Trump has made his intolerance VERY clear from before he was even elected, and as I've already mentioned since taking office a LOT of information presented by government agencies under the Executive Branch has been removed. And it really doesn't take much see the obvious patterns. Basically anything Obama and his supporters have raised concern about, including the unfair treatment of LGBT people and climate change. Again, look at the list.

This censorship is so obviously aligned with Trump's stated positions and actions across the cabinet, not to mention he *IS* the final word on Executive Branch policy. If this is "exactly what Trump does not want", all he has to do is say so and the policy is killed. Again, these are not laws, they are policies over which he has complete authority.

I would say "nice try" but it wasn't even that. I assume you slipped and would not normally say such an idiot thing.

pafret wrote:

There is an evil in this imposition of thought control but it is by no means certain that Trump is behind it.

Maybe not to the clueless.

pafret wrote:

The man is a blunt instrument; he is hardly likely to espouse speech suppression.

Oh, of course not... Telling the NFL to fire athletes who dare take a knee before the flag in symbolic protest could not possibly suggest suppression of speech. What was I thinking? LOL
Dec 16, 2017 13:08:40   #
11r20 wrote:
it's all queerbait speak, i can hear it No~w

they'll say--- we're vul~~nerable
because cletus says we cant make a fe~tus
n' we deserve enti~~tlement
because we're dive~~rse
and identify ourselves as transge~~nder
n' my name's jimmy marie; now whats ya gonna give me?


See folks, this is all part of the emotional outrage that will drive us to fascism. IQ of 11 (or 20) is ranting about "queerbait speak" because he has an emotional issue with queers. On the left we aren't scared of queers but on the right, they're totally freaked out - to the point where they are willing to accept censorship.

Why are they so freaked out?

I tend to think it's because they are scared of being queer. So many tough-talking conservatives have been exposed as closet-case faggots that the pattern is becoming clear. For a closet-case queer, an emphatic rant against queers is the best cover.

For anyone else that isn't a Nazi, the censorship of words like "diversity" presents no value worth endangering our free society.
Dec 16, 2017 12:32:53   #
badbobby wrote:
the report was from the WASHINGTON NEWS
I would hardly call that factual

The report was from the Washington Post, the paper that exposed Watergate. Talk to me when you learn not to get confused before you even get past the title.
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 341 next>>
Home | Latest Digest | Back to Top | All Sections
Contact us | Privacy policy | Terms of use
OnePoliticalPlaza.com - Forum
Copyright 2012-2016 IDF International Technologies, Inc.