The Orange Mane -  a Denver Broncos Fan Community  

Go Back   The Orange Mane - a Denver Broncos Fan Community > Jibba Jabba > War, Religion and Politics Thread
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Chat Room Mark Forums Read



Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 04-10-2013, 11:14 AM   #176
Requiem
~~~
 
Requiem's Avatar
 
~ ~ ~

Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Earth Division
Posts: 24,309

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Princes of Tara
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tombstone RJ View Post
I believe she had the second longest run of any Prime Minister of the 20th century so even if she wasn't "popular" she did get re-elected so I'm not sure how that works. Also, I never said she was popular, just that she had some very difficult things to deal with and that the way she delt with them was never going to make everyone happy. That's known as "leadership" something the not everyone understands.
Couldn't the same thing be said about our President?
Requiem is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-10-2013, 11:17 AM   #177
Rohirrim
Partisan
 
Rohirrim's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Twixt Hell & Highwater
Posts: 55,775

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Malik Jackson
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
It's not that difficult. Effective speech in the mass media age requires resources. You prefer a system where the government doles out those resources only to those who've been officially rubber-stamped. Everyone else (not approved by the government) is to remain functionally silent.

You don't see any free speech issues with this?
Free speech is not an absolute. You can't yell "Fire!" in a crowded theatre when there is no fire. You can't stand in a mall screaming obscenities at children. You can't get up on a box in a public street and start calling out for the assassination of public figures. Lincoln suspended habeus corpus during the Civil War. Why? Because there were newspaper editors in the North fomenting secession and he couldn't allow a fifth column operating in his rear. Saving the Union came first.

You want to interpret the first amendment to mean that the rich and powerful can buy government and buy elections? I don't. You go with that interpretation and you might as well flush self-government down the toilet. Learn the difference between liberty and license.
Rohirrim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-10-2013, 11:23 AM   #178
Tombstone RJ
Ring of Famer
 
Tombstone RJ's Avatar
 
Old School

Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: In the Tetons!
Posts: 22,288

Adopt-a-Bronco:
WorrellWilliams
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Requiem View Post
Couldn't the same thing be said about our President?
Not sure what your point is, all I know is she was the longest serving prime minister of the 20th century serving from 1979 until 1990. So even if she was only a 2 term prime minister I guess getting 2 terms is difficult, as she was the longest serving prime minister of the 20th century.

Also, quit following me around.
Tombstone RJ is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 04-10-2013, 11:27 AM   #179
BroncoBeavis
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rohirrim View Post
Free speech is not an absolute. You can't yell "Fire!" in a crowded theatre when there is no fire. You can't stand in a mall screaming obscenities at children. You can't get up on a box in a public street and start calling out for the assassination of public figures. Lincoln suspended habeus corpus during the Civil War. Why? Because there were newspaper editors in the North fomenting secession and he couldn't allow a fifth column operating in his rear. Saving the Union came first.

You want to interpret the first amendment to mean that the rich and powerful can buy government and buy elections? I don't. You go with that interpretation and you might as well flush self-government down the toilet. Learn the difference between liberty and license.
So you equate shouting fire in a crowded theater to the government determining who can speak when in matters of the future of government itself?

Abiding that anyone should ever be silenced by the government in regards to a core function of the government itself goes to the heart of why the 1st Amendment exists in the first place.
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-10-2013, 11:35 AM   #180
Requiem
~~~
 
Requiem's Avatar
 
~ ~ ~

Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Earth Division
Posts: 24,309

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Princes of Tara
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tombstone RJ View Post
Not sure what your point is, all I know is she was the longest serving prime minister of the 20th century serving from 1979 until 1990. So even if she was only a 2 term prime minister I guess getting 2 terms is difficult, as she was the longest serving prime minister of the 20th century.

Also, quit following me around.
Obviously you don't get the point. Never do. Derp a derp. Sack up.
Requiem is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-10-2013, 11:42 AM   #181
Tombstone RJ
Ring of Famer
 
Tombstone RJ's Avatar
 
Old School

Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: In the Tetons!
Posts: 22,288

Adopt-a-Bronco:
WorrellWilliams
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Requiem View Post
Obviously you don't get the point. Never do. Derp a derp. Sack up.
You have no point, other than to argue. Like I said, I don't know how general elections are done in the UK. Unless you want to eleborate and then explain how she was the longest serving prime minister of the 20th century in the UK then fine. I'm all ears.
Tombstone RJ is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 04-10-2013, 11:48 AM   #182
Requiem
~~~
 
Requiem's Avatar
 
~ ~ ~

Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Earth Division
Posts: 24,309

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Princes of Tara
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tombstone RJ View Post
You have no point, other than to argue.
I was pointing out how absurd your statement was. However, I doubt you would think that statement would be applicable to our POTUS.

Quote:
Like I said, I don't know how general elections are done in the UK.
I know you don't. So why try and discuss things you actually have no knowledge of and attempt to criticize others on the subject which are of a higher informed opinion than your own?

Quote:
Unless you want to eleborate and then explain how she was the longest serving prime minister of the 20th century in the UK then fine. I'm all ears.
I have full faith in your Googling abilities.
Requiem is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-10-2013, 11:54 AM   #183
Rohirrim
Partisan
 
Rohirrim's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Twixt Hell & Highwater
Posts: 55,775

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Malik Jackson
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
So you equate shouting fire in a crowded theater to the government determining who can speak when in matters of the future of government itself?

Abiding that anyone should ever be silenced by the government in regards to a core function of the government itself goes to the heart of why the 1st Amendment exists in the first place.
Why do you always propose false arguments and then hang onto them for dear life? Money is not speech. I guess we make that mistake now because the neoliberals Reagan and Thatcher launched a new world (actually an old, defunct Robber Baron world reborn) where markets are the same thing as liberty. I can see where some people, immersed in such a world, might make the mistake of believing that it stands to reason that money equals speech. Of course, in the neoliberal world, reason has nothing to do with it.

The SCOTUS ****ed up in the same way that they have in the past: They got caught up in the economic zeitgeist and just went along with the Washington herd, which after all is firmly latched onto the globalism money teat.

Last edited by Rohirrim; 04-10-2013 at 11:57 AM..
Rohirrim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-10-2013, 11:57 AM   #184
Tombstone RJ
Ring of Famer
 
Tombstone RJ's Avatar
 
Old School

Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: In the Tetons!
Posts: 22,288

Adopt-a-Bronco:
WorrellWilliams
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Requiem View Post
I was pointing out how absurd your statement was. However, I doubt you would think that statement would be applicable to our POTUS.
Not the same thing but whatever. The POTUS does not get elected by the popular vote but by the electoral college. Also, the POTUS can only serve two terms, not so with the pime minister.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Requiem View Post
I know you don't. So why try and discuss things you actually have no knowledge of and attempt to criticize others on the subject which are of a higher informed opinion than your own?
Look who's talking! Please, tell me how smart you are again!



Quote:
Originally Posted by Requiem View Post
I have full faith in your Googling abilities.
No thanks, I have you to educate me. You keep following me around...
Tombstone RJ is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 04-10-2013, 12:02 PM   #185
BroncoBeavis
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rohirrim View Post
Why do you always propose false arguments and then hang onto them for dear life? Money is not speech.
That's interesting. So what then is the justification for taxpayers funding political candidates? I mean since they're not really 'speaking' with it.
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-10-2013, 12:11 PM   #186
peacepipe
Ring of Famer
 
New to the Forum

Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 7,233

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tombstone RJ View Post
Not the same thing but whatever. The POTUS does not get elected by the popular vote but by the electoral college. Also, the POTUS can only serve two terms, not so with the pime minister.





Look who's talking! Please, tell me how smart you are again!





No thanks, I have you to educate me. You keep following me around...
You do realize it was somewhat a bit of luck that she became the PM, she became leader of the conservative party,it was her party that got elected,she just happened to be the conservatives party leader,hence becoming the PM.
peacepipe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 04-10-2013, 12:21 PM   #187
DenverBrit
Just hanging out.
 
DenverBrit's Avatar
 
Got a breath mint??

Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Denver
Posts: 12,665

Adopt-a-Bronco:
The Team
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacepipe View Post
You do realize it was somewhat a bit of luck that she became the PM, she became leader of the conservative party,it was her party that got elected,she just happened to be the conservatives party leader,hence becoming the PM.
That's how all PMs are elected, not luck, but chosen by the party.
DenverBrit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-10-2013, 12:27 PM   #188
Requiem
~~~
 
Requiem's Avatar
 
~ ~ ~

Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Earth Division
Posts: 24,309

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Princes of Tara
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tombstone RJ View Post
Not the same thing but whatever. The POTUS does not get elected by the popular vote but by the electoral college. Also, the POTUS can only serve two terms, not so with the pime minister.

Look who's talking! Please, tell me how smart you are again!
I know how electoral systems work here and abroad. Unlike most, I'm not an ignorant American who doesn't understand how other places work.

Quote:
No thanks, I have you to educate me. You keep following me around...
I point out silly stuff when I see it. It just so happens that you continually make yourself look ridiculous. Better yourself.
Requiem is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-10-2013, 01:05 PM   #189
Rohirrim
Partisan
 
Rohirrim's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Twixt Hell & Highwater
Posts: 55,775

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Malik Jackson
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
That's interesting. So what then is the justification for taxpayers funding political candidates? I mean since they're not really 'speaking' with it.
Plucking out single sentences from a post is dishonest. You do it all the time.

The benefit to the people is that they get their government back. I recently read an article from a Harvard professor of political science. He likened our government representatives to lab rats. They tap the little machine and get a pellet. And that's how they spend the majority of their days, tapping the money machine in order to get the pellets required to stay in office. That's our system. A lobbyocracy. Which is why they never seem to respond to the issues that most Americans actually give a damn about.
Rohirrim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-10-2013, 01:18 PM   #190
cutthemdown
A verbis ad verbera
 
cutthemdown's Avatar
 
Zimm to HOF

Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Long Beach
Posts: 37,031
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by broncoblue View Post
Awful ,evil, working class hating b****.I never speak ill of the dead but she made the rich richer the poor poorer . She killed steel ,coal and the working class people. Awful awful evil person.
#1 in the charts in uk is now "ding dong the witch is dead" ,this speaks volumes.
As for her funeral costing 8 million to 10 million pounds ,i say put her on raft and set fire to her on the thames .You couldnt use coal tho ,we have none .
Iron Lady RIP ..rust in pee.
You can't say you don't speak ill of the dead then call her an evil awful person. Souds like you just spoke ill of the dead to me.
cutthemdown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-10-2013, 01:21 PM   #191
DenverBrit
Just hanging out.
 
DenverBrit's Avatar
 
Got a breath mint??

Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Denver
Posts: 12,665

Adopt-a-Bronco:
The Team
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by broncoblue View Post
Awful ,evil, working class hating b****.I never speak ill of the dead but she made the rich richer the poor poorer . She killed steel ,coal and the working class people. Awful awful evil person.
#1 in the charts in uk is now "ding dong the witch is dead" ,this speaks volumes.
As for her funeral costing 8 million to 10 million pounds ,i say put her on raft and set fire to her on the thames .You couldnt use coal tho ,we have none .
Iron Lady RIP ..rust in pee.
Blue, were you living in England just before Maggie got elected?
DenverBrit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-10-2013, 01:24 PM   #192
BroncoBeavis
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rohirrim View Post
Plucking out single sentences from a post is dishonest. You do it all the time.
I do it to get to exactly what I'm talking about. I doubt everyone wants to reread everything you posted all over again. I myself prefer people to address points specifically one at a time. I don't see any dishonesty in it. Especially when I addressed the hinge of your entire argument. Whether money is or isn't speech is the only real argument you have. You're just on the wrong side of it.

Quote:
The benefit to the people is that they get their government back. I recently read an article from a Harvard professor of political science. He likened our government representatives to lab rats. They tap the little machine and get a pellet. And that's how they spend the majority of their days, tapping the money machine in order to get the pellets required to stay in office. That's our system. A lobbyocracy. Which is why they never seem to respond to the issues that most Americans actually give a damn about.
The problem with your analogy is that your rats are the ones who design and run the machine. They're not hapless bystanders like a rat in a cage. In reality you have it backwards. The government runs the rat maze. And provides the pellet dispensers for corporate rats to come tap on (while leaving a corresponding tip in the jar) So long as government officials offer those food pellets of power and influence, countless rats will inevitably come along to get as much out of it as they can.

The only real answer is to stop feeding the rats. They won't jump through all those hoops and mazes for nothing.
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-10-2013, 01:29 PM   #193
DenverBrit
Just hanging out.
 
DenverBrit's Avatar
 
Got a breath mint??

Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Denver
Posts: 12,665

Adopt-a-Bronco:
The Team
Default

One of the great accomplishments during Maggie's tenur was her demolition of the extreme classes.....unions, who were power crazy and controlling government policy and the upper classes, who were out of touch. The middle classes thrived and the economy boomed. She stayed around too long, but wasn't elected to three terms because she was unpopular, she was reelected because of what she accomplished; painful as it was for many, it was overdue and inevitable.

Quote:
WASHINGTON -- People talk about transformational politicians. But watching Margaret Thatcher take down the British class system was an education in how it's really done. It required the radical vision and iron will of someone who genuinely abhorred the status quo.

Thatcher demolished the two conservative pillars of British society: the labor unions that held the parliamentary Labor Party in bondage and the upper-class Tory leaders who resembled the benign but hapless relics of "Downton Abbey." It's hard to say which side was more hidebound and resistant to change, the unions or the aristocrats. They were unwitting partners in Britain's paralysis.

By breaking the power of the unions and the old Tory elite, Thatcher opened the way for a politically powerful British middle class. The universality of the middle class is America's enduring national myth, so it's hard for us to appreciate how narrow and precarious it was in Britain. Recall the disastrous aspirations for upward mobility of the bank clerk Leonard Bast in E.M. Forster's novel "Howard's End," and you have a sense of the limited, dreary vista that was middle-class life before Maggie.I had an unusual vantage on Thatcher's revolution in British politics. I was a graduate student at Cambridge in 1974 and 1975, a time when the class-bound straitjacket of British politics was painfully evident, but still unbreakable. The Labor Party had returned to power at the end of the coal strike of 1974, a union-organized exercise in national suicide. Thatcher had just seized the leadership of a Tory Party dazed by defeat and seemingly in the wilderness.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/art...er_117863.html
DenverBrit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-10-2013, 01:44 PM   #194
TonyR
Franchise Poster
 
TonyR's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Mid-Atlantic
Posts: 19,599
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
The only real answer is to stop feeding the rats. They won't jump through all those hoops and mazes for nothing.
If only it were that simple. It's a mutually beneficial relationship. And neither side had any benefit to stop, in fact to the contrary. In your analogy, both sides are the rats. They're all fighting for power, influence, and money.
TonyR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-10-2013, 02:11 PM   #195
BroncoBeavis
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TonyR View Post
If only it were that simple. It's a mutually beneficial relationship. And neither side had any benefit to stop, in fact to the contrary. In your analogy, both sides are the rats. They're all fighting for power, influence, and money.
Well there's some truth to that. And it gets into a little bit of chicken and egg stuff... who's really to blame, the whore or the john?

When it comes to dispensing blame, it's simple. Both are at fault. Now we both feel better. But when it comes to realistic solutions, however, you have to get down to basics and look at the source.

Every time the federal government gets involved in markets, it will get exposed to market forces trying to harness it for certain people's/groups' benefit. There will always be interaction, temptation and finally corruption there. Trying to address the symptoms of that is like trying to plug holes one by one in a sieve. You'll never get there.

The real answer lies in keeping government influence out of markets as much as possible in the first place. Profit-driven organizations don't tend to bribe (or "contribute" to) officials who can't or won't help them.

Monsanto invested in politicians because they knew there was money in it at the end of the day. And they were obviously proven right.
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-10-2013, 02:17 PM   #196
Kaylore
Because I am better
 
Kaylore's Avatar
 
Everything

Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Ceti Alpha V
Posts: 47,032

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Pat Bowlen
Default

Can we remove a freedom just because we don't like the result? Depends on who you ask, but some would argue their ability to hire someone to represent their best interests is protected in the constitution. I had a buddy say he wanted "ALL" special interests gones from Washington. I asked why and of course he cited corporations. I then asked him if he'd be ok with all the others losing their voices as well: unions, civil rights groups, scientists who specialize in areas that the public at large doesn't care and/or is not educated about enough to form a good opinion on. Not all special interests are bad. Many aren't bad or good, but necessary because they represent an industry or aspect about our society that requires some expertise, and while not controversial, is important to society and must be factored into codefied law.

How many average citizens even care about each individual issue in our government? Do we as citizens take ownership of the consequences of ALL these things?
Kaylore is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-10-2013, 03:32 PM   #197
peacepipe
Ring of Famer
 
New to the Forum

Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 7,233

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaylore View Post
Can we remove a freedom just because we don't like the result? Depends on who you ask, but some would argue their ability to hire someone to represent their best interests is protected in the constitution. I had a buddy say he wanted "ALL" special interests gones from Washington. I asked why and of course he cited corporations. I then asked him if he'd be ok with all the others losing their voices as well: unions, civil rights groups, scientists who specialize in areas that the public at large doesn't care and/or is not educated about enough to form a good opinion on. Not all special interests are bad. Many aren't bad or good, but necessary because they represent an industry or aspect about our society that requires some expertise, and while not controversial, is important to society and must be factored into codefied law.

How many average citizens even care about each individual issue in our government? Do we as citizens take ownership of the consequences of ALL these things?
There's no problem with special interest,it's a problem when the interest of a few undermine the interest of the many.
peacepipe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 04-10-2013, 04:17 PM   #198
BroncoBeavis
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacepipe View Post
There's no problem with special interest,it's a problem when the interest of a few undermine the interest of the many.
So when a public sector union, for example, receives a pay raise, is that not by sheer definition the interest of a few undermining the interests of the many?

People tend to see their own interests as everyone's interest.
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-10-2013, 05:09 PM   #199
Tombstone RJ
Ring of Famer
 
Tombstone RJ's Avatar
 
Old School

Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: In the Tetons!
Posts: 22,288

Adopt-a-Bronco:
WorrellWilliams
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Requiem View Post
I know how electoral systems work here and abroad. Unlike most, I'm not an ignorant American who doesn't understand how other places work.
So how the POTUS gets elected and how the PM of the UK gets elected are not the same, yet you want me to draw some conclusion that they are the same. Again, I'm not sure what your point is other than you have no point. According to others here, Thatcher was PM because of her party affiliation. So, again, not at all like the POTUS that gets elected by the electoral college via a general election of the population of the entire USA. Also the PM can be elected more than twice whereas the president can't.

So again, you have no point other than you like to think you know what you are talking about.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Requiem View Post
I point out silly stuff when I see it. It just so happens that you continually make yourself look ridiculous. Better yourself.
whatever
Tombstone RJ is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 04-10-2013, 05:50 PM   #200
peacepipe
Ring of Famer
 
New to the Forum

Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 7,233

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
So when a public sector union, for example, receives a pay raise, is that not by sheer definition the interest of a few undermining the interests of the many?

People tend to see their own interests as everyone's interest.
Apples & oranges. What's negotiated into a CBA & what money is spent bribing politicians is two desperate things.
peacepipe is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes



Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:44 PM.


Denver Broncos