Yeah, but Butters a big talking point among Republicans (notedly ((fuck you mozilla that is a word)) John McCain but also other prominent leaders) is that earmarks are the worst thing on the hill and that they are the reason we have a deficit.
When, in actuality, they represent a very small percentage of spending and Republicans use them jsut as much as Democrats.
I think that Langley's point is more "if you, through your words, create a situation or incite others to lawbreaking, then you are at least in part responsible."
which is, to me, fair enough. If someone says "shoot the gays" and then someone shoots a gay guy and tells the police he did it because the guy on TV said so then the guy on TV should be included in the investigation, and possibly charged with inciting violence.
So when Tossrock wished I got hit by a bus, and Rane decides to bury me in the back of a suburban, Tossrock should be charged?
Lets assume I did get hit by a bus, because someone thought tossrock knew best. Does he become immoral?
If nothing happened, wouldn't the fact that Tossrock did specify he hoped I got hit by a bus, make him immoral?
First of all, no, because you're talking about something said in sarcasm and jest, and not a massively public tent revival.
Secondly, if someone seriously said you should be killed, and someone who heard that killed you, then yes that person should be in some way held responsible.
Why does it matter whether or not what was said actually results in some action? The inherent risk in action should be enough to charge them.
Sarcasm and jest can have unexpected consequences, much like Scott Lively's speech, he didn't intend for his actions to result in such harshness.
First of all, no, because you're talking about something said in sarcasm and jest, and not a massively public tent revival.
Secondly, if someone seriously said you should be killed, and someone who heard that killed you, then yes that person should be in some way held responsible.
I'm fairly certain that that sort of thing is illegal in America.
Mind you, I haven't read your previous arguments. I've no fucking clue what you bitches are bitching about.
Munkus BeaverYou don't have to attend every argument you are invited to.Philosophy: Stoicism. Politics: Democratic SocialistRegistered User, ClubPAregular
We understand that you believe his use of free speech is immoral.
Even in America, inciting violence is not an applicable use of free speech. You can't yell fire in a crowded theater. You can't yell bomb on an airplane. etc. etc.
Munkus Beaver on
Humor can be dissected as a frog can, but dies in the process.
0
OnTheLastCastlelet's keep it haimish for the peripateticRegistered Userregular
edited December 2010
Deacon, tell me more about being transracial. You remind me of a kid I knew once named Alex! Is that you in there, Alex?!
I think that Langley's point is more "if you, through your words, create a situation or incite others to lawbreaking, then you are at least in part responsible."
which is, to me, fair enough. If someone says "shoot the gays" and then someone shoots a gay guy and tells the police he did it because the guy on TV said so then the guy on TV should be included in the investigation, and possibly charged with inciting violence.
So when Tossrock wished I got hit by a bus, and Rane decides to bury me in the back of a suburban, Tossrock should be charged?
Lets assume I did get hit by a bus, because someone thought tossrock knew best. Does he become immoral?
If nothing happened, wouldn't the fact that Tossrock did specify he hoped I got hit by a bus, make him immoral?
First of all, no, because you're talking about something said in sarcasm and jest, and not a massively public tent revival.
Secondly, if someone seriously said you should be killed, and someone who heard that killed you, then yes that person should be in some way held responsible.
Why does it matter whether or not what was said actually results in some action? The inherent risk in action should be enough to charge them.
Sarcasm and jest can have unexpected consequences, much like Scott Lively's speech, he didn't intend for his actions to result in such harshness.
And that would be taken accout of in trial
Though if you say something in jest and it get's someone killed you are still responsible
Maybe nobody got the joke
Maybe it was a bad joke
If you make a public statement about something and it doesn't turn out how you liked, guess what, Man up. You make a statement in public without being prepared to face the consequences of your words you shouldn't be speaking.
Yeah, but Butters a big talking point among Republicans (notedly ((fuck you mozilla that is a word)) John McCain but also other prominent leaders) is that earmarks are the worst thing on the hill and that they are the reason we have a deficit.
When, in actuality, they represent a very small percentage of spending and Republicans use them jsut as much as Democrats.
And that's all politics. They wanted the fucking earmarks. Trust me. But they're very unpopular right now and though the earmarks themselves are a small percentage (relative to ridiculously over-sized spending bills) they represent a fiscal policy that has also become very unpopular.
What they successfully campaigned against was massive spending bills which is what I said in my post. The earmarks (which as I said they wanted) weren't the convenient excuse at all. They were put in to try and entice them to vote for a huge spending bill they otherwise might not have supported and would have put a huge dent in their attempts to regain the reputation of fiscal responsibility the GOP has long lost.
You do realize that a bunch of those earmarks were put in by Republican Senators, right?
Edit: Often the exact same Senators who then complained about how the Omnibus Spending Bill was too "loaded with earmarks" to vote for, right?
First of all, no, because you're talking about something said in sarcasm and jest, and not a massively public tent revival.
Secondly, if someone seriously said you should be killed, and someone who heard that killed you, then yes that person should be in some way held responsible.
I'm fairly certain that that sort of thing is illegal in America.
Mind you, I haven't read your previous arguments. I've no fucking clue what you bitches are bitching about.
I'm arguing that Scott Lively's role in indirectly promoting violence against homosexuals in Uganda supersedes his right to free speech, in that it endangers and influences an already unstable situation. It was irresponsible and reprehensible.
Deacon and Jigrah are arguing that his statements/position is not immoral and well within reasonable bounds.
We understand that you believe his use of free speech is immoral.
Even in America, inciting violence is not an applicable use of free speech. You can't yell fire in a crowded theater. You can't yell bomb on an airplane. etc. etc.
I haven't read a transcript of Scott Lively's speech, just little nuggets that definitely constitute as hateful speech. While hateful, I didn't find it to encourage people to solve the homosexuality "problem" with violence.
I'm in school now, doggie. It has been too long since we "crossed swords."
Plus, when I was working for the government I worked for NIH. While, yes, some parts of NIH are arms of the M.I.C., they also do a fucking lot of really good work and I fully support their goals.
What they successfully campaigned against was massive spending bills which is what I said in my post. The earmarks (which as I said they wanted) weren't the convenient excuse at all. They were put in to try and entice them to vote for a huge spending bill they otherwise might not have supported and would have put a huge dent in their attempts to regain the reputation of fiscal responsibility the GOP has long lost.
You do realize that a bunch of those earmarks were put in by Republican Senators, right?
Edit: Often the exact same Senators who then complained about how the Omnibus Spending Bill was too "loaded with earmarks" to vote for, right?
Yes I do and in the end the leadership convinced them the bill was a political trap (by its size not by the presence of earmarks) and convinced them to stand against it.
First of all, no, because you're talking about something said in sarcasm and jest, and not a massively public tent revival.
Secondly, if someone seriously said you should be killed, and someone who heard that killed you, then yes that person should be in some way held responsible.
I'm fairly certain that that sort of thing is illegal in America.
Mind you, I haven't read your previous arguments. I've no fucking clue what you bitches are bitching about.
I'm arguing that Scott Lively's role in indirectly promoting violence against homosexuals in Uganda supersedes his right to free speech, in that it endangers and influences an already unstable situation. It was irresponsible and reprehensible.
Deacon and Jigrah are arguing that his statements/position is not immoral and well within reasonable bounds.
I haven't stated any opinion other than he has not violated his right to freedom of speech, and I have made no claims on to the morality of his position.
We understand that you believe his use of free speech is immoral.
Even in America, inciting violence is not an applicable use of free speech. You can't yell fire in a crowded theater. You can't yell bomb on an airplane. etc. etc.
I haven't read a transcript of Scott Lively's speech, just little nuggets that definitely constitute as hateful speech. While hateful, I didn't find it to encourage people to solve the homosexuality "problem" with violence.
He told a country with a history of civil strife and violence that already has homosexuality on the books as a life imprisonment crime, that they weren't doing enough to wipe out the sin/sinners. He said that it was an attack on their nation, that they had to do whatever they could to get rid of the blight of homosexuality.
A month later, the death penalty is introduced with an addendum that anyone who does not turn in known homosexuals will be put in jail. Violence against homosexuals has risen 10% since his speech.
Telling a group of people that life in prison isn't enough is tacitly encouraging the death penalty and violence.
What they successfully campaigned against was massive spending bills which is what I said in my post. The earmarks (which as I said they wanted) weren't the convenient excuse at all. They were put in to try and entice them to vote for a huge spending bill they otherwise might not have supported and would have put a huge dent in their attempts to regain the reputation of fiscal responsibility the GOP has long lost.
You do realize that a bunch of those earmarks were put in by Republican Senators, right?
Edit: Often the exact same Senators who then complained about how the Omnibus Spending Bill was too "loaded with earmarks" to vote for, right?
Yes I do and in the end the leadership convinced them the bill was a political trap (by its size not by the presence of earmarks) and convinced them to stand against it.
Which is why McCain was grandstanding in the Senate about defeating the Omnibus Spending Bill based on how many earmarks it contained.
I'm fascinated that you consider a spending bill supported by the majority in Congress to be a "trap", but then again you believe that the GOP is the party of fiscal responsibility so then again I shouldn't be surprised.
Edit: especially since this "trap" is a bill that's required to keep the federal government functioning. I'm now wondering what the "traps" were in the DADT repeal bill and the Zedroga bill.
Basically Callius if some crazy dude went out and blew up a federal building because of your "military industrial complex" position, you'd accept responsibility?
DeaconBlues on
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
0
ButtersA glass of some milksRegistered Userregular
What they successfully campaigned against was massive spending bills which is what I said in my post. The earmarks (which as I said they wanted) weren't the convenient excuse at all. They were put in to try and entice them to vote for a huge spending bill they otherwise might not have supported and would have put a huge dent in their attempts to regain the reputation of fiscal responsibility the GOP has long lost.
You do realize that a bunch of those earmarks were put in by Republican Senators, right?
Edit: Often the exact same Senators who then complained about how the Omnibus Spending Bill was too "loaded with earmarks" to vote for, right?
Yes I do and in the end the leadership convinced them the bill was a political trap (by its size not by the presence of earmarks) and convinced them to stand against it.
Which is why McCain was grandstanding in the Senate about defeating the Omnibus Spending Bill based on how many earmarks it contained.
I'm fascinated that you consider a spending bill supported by the majority in Congress to be a "trap", but then again you believe that the GOP is the party of fiscal responsibility so then again I shouldn't be surprised.
How do you get "believe that the GOP is the party of fiscal responsibility" from "attempts to regain the reputation of fiscal responsibility the GOP has long lost"? Reading comprehension much, guy?
And it was a trap for the next session of Congress not this one. Also, who the fuck cares what McCain says he's an asshole.
Florida sheriff's deputies have arrested on obscenity charges a Colorado man who wrote a guide for pedophiles.
Polk County deputies arrested Phillip Ray Greaves II at his home in Pueblo, Colo., early Monday on a Florida warrant.
Polk Sheriff Grady Judd says his office was able to arrest Greaves on Florida obscenity charges because Greaves sold and mailed his book, "The Pedophile's Guide to Love and Pleasure: a Child-lover's Code of Conduct," to Polk deputies. Judd says Greaves even signed the book.
In November, Greaves garnered national attention because his self-published book for sale on Amazon offered advice to pedophiles on how to make a sexual encounter with a child as safe as possible. The website later removed the book.
How do you get "believe that the GOP is the party of fiscal responsibility" from "attempts to regain the reputation of fiscal responsibility the GOP has long lost"? Reading comprehension much, guy?
And it was a trap for the next session of Congress not this one. Also, who the fuck cares what McCain says he's an asshole.
So, again, what were the "traps" the Democrats put into the DADT repeal bill and the Zedroga bill that justify the GOP filibusters of both bills?
So whats the deal with the Zedroga bill anyway, why does the government want to cover their health costs? Is it a political thing, a move to prevent compensation through litigation or???
Basically Callius if some crazy dude went out and blew up a federal building because of your "military industrial complex" position, you'd accept responsibility?
When did I tell people that they should attack the military? I don't believe "fuck the military industrial complex" equates to "there are currently laws which put homosexuals in prison for life, but I don't believe that is enough and you should do more to rid yourself of the homosexual scourge."
I mean, if you can't see the degree of difference between those two positions then I question your already dubious logical faculties.
Posts
Don't forget the most important thing...
The farther back you were the more airtime you could get off speed bumps.
Hay Guyz, wut's in dis thread?
When, in actuality, they represent a very small percentage of spending and Republicans use them jsut as much as Democrats.
Why does it matter whether or not what was said actually results in some action? The inherent risk in action should be enough to charge them.
Sarcasm and jest can have unexpected consequences, much like Scott Lively's speech, he didn't intend for his actions to result in such harshness.
Damn those are some cute little bears
I want to hug them
cause, seriously... fuck the military industrial complex.
On the one hand I am a bit... naughty at times.
On the other hand look at all this delicious debate!
Bitches bein' bitches, dogg.
Even in America, inciting violence is not an applicable use of free speech. You can't yell fire in a crowded theater. You can't yell bomb on an airplane. etc. etc.
And that would be taken accout of in trial
Though if you say something in jest and it get's someone killed you are still responsible
Maybe nobody got the joke
Maybe it was a bad joke
If you make a public statement about something and it doesn't turn out how you liked, guess what, Man up. You make a statement in public without being prepared to face the consequences of your words you shouldn't be speaking.
And that's all politics. They wanted the fucking earmarks. Trust me. But they're very unpopular right now and though the earmarks themselves are a small percentage (relative to ridiculously over-sized spending bills) they represent a fiscal policy that has also become very unpopular.
I like debate
It is a good way to learn if you are right or wrong.
You do realize that a bunch of those earmarks were put in by Republican Senators, right?
Edit: Often the exact same Senators who then complained about how the Omnibus Spending Bill was too "loaded with earmarks" to vote for, right?
I'm arguing that Scott Lively's role in indirectly promoting violence against homosexuals in Uganda supersedes his right to free speech, in that it endangers and influences an already unstable situation. It was irresponsible and reprehensible.
Deacon and Jigrah are arguing that his statements/position is not immoral and well within reasonable bounds.
don't you work for the federal government
I haven't read a transcript of Scott Lively's speech, just little nuggets that definitely constitute as hateful speech. While hateful, I didn't find it to encourage people to solve the homosexuality "problem" with violence.
Plus, when I was working for the government I worked for NIH. While, yes, some parts of NIH are arms of the M.I.C., they also do a fucking lot of really good work and I fully support their goals.
Can you suggest a good basic protoss build.
I'm about to finish single player and start multiplayer and I'm *so scared*.
Yes I do and in the end the leadership convinced them the bill was a political trap (by its size not by the presence of earmarks) and convinced them to stand against it.
spam stalkers
dont stop
XBLGT:Banzeye SC2: Apollo.394
I haven't stated any opinion other than he has not violated his right to freedom of speech, and I have made no claims on to the morality of his position.
He told a country with a history of civil strife and violence that already has homosexuality on the books as a life imprisonment crime, that they weren't doing enough to wipe out the sin/sinners. He said that it was an attack on their nation, that they had to do whatever they could to get rid of the blight of homosexuality.
A month later, the death penalty is introduced with an addendum that anyone who does not turn in known homosexuals will be put in jail. Violence against homosexuals has risen 10% since his speech.
Telling a group of people that life in prison isn't enough is tacitly encouraging the death penalty and violence.
Which is why McCain was grandstanding in the Senate about defeating the Omnibus Spending Bill based on how many earmarks it contained.
I'm fascinated that you consider a spending bill supported by the majority in Congress to be a "trap", but then again you believe that the GOP is the party of fiscal responsibility so then again I shouldn't be surprised.
Edit: especially since this "trap" is a bill that's required to keep the federal government functioning. I'm now wondering what the "traps" were in the DADT repeal bill and the Zedroga bill.
but why you always misspell my name when it is right there I will never understand.
How do you get "believe that the GOP is the party of fiscal responsibility" from "attempts to regain the reputation of fiscal responsibility the GOP has long lost"? Reading comprehension much, guy?
And it was a trap for the next session of Congress not this one. Also, who the fuck cares what McCain says he's an asshole.
As far as inciting violence, yah, but probably due to ignorance on his behalf more so then his motive, not that it is an excuse.
So, again, what were the "traps" the Democrats put into the DADT repeal bill and the Zedroga bill that justify the GOP filibusters of both bills?
I mean, if you can't see the degree of difference between those two positions then I question your already dubious logical faculties.