Students: Too Much Freedom of Press

[Kennedy 0]

Your little third grade definitions may be useful in making your world a simple place, but out here in reality things have connotative meanings as well as denotative, and socialism is not a utopia waiting to happen.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

You start one and make your claims of the right wing and its love of mass communication and absolute freedom/proliferation of the press.

So you can sit back, snipe, pick at each word choice, and generally tear down anyhtign written without offering anyhting enw or positive of your own?

No thanks, if it interests you, or you really want to hijack the thread, go ahead and spout off.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[EBSB52 0]

Quote

Your little third grade definitions may be useful in making your world a simple place, but out here in reality things have connotative meanings as well as denotative, and socialism is not a utopia waiting to happen.

How about this 3rd grade word with definition?

Acquiescence: Passive assent or agreement without protest.

I noticed you post to pretend you have a reply, but when you avoid any substantive reply you are acquiescing.

Really, the defintions of the words you provided for your intial arguments disprove your very argument. It isn't valid to modify the definitions of words for your convenience.

[EBSB52 0]

Quote

Quote

You start one and make your claims of the right wing and its love of mass communication and absolute freedom/proliferation of the press.

So you can sit back, snipe, pick at each word choice, and generally tear down anyhtign written without offering anyhting enw or positive of your own?

No thanks, if it interests you, or you really want to hijack the thread, go ahead and spout off.

Let's see, you brought the social concelts in, modified their meaning, I refuted thema nd you think I'm hijacking. Okaaaay. You brought in the concept of a new thread, so 2 of us asked you to start a thread that you introduced and this is what we get.

Look, your points are invalid by way of definition and you can't even gracefully bow out. I know you want Communism to be Socialism an vice versa, bit that's just not the case. They do have some similarities, but they are vastly different.

Please, just answer my posts - all of the points.

[RoadRash 0]

Ok, why don't you take these personal barbs to PMs and stop wasting space here......

~R+R...

~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
Fly the friendly skies...^_^...})ii({...^_~...

[Kennedy 0]

I hate to be the one to tell you, but it is you, not I, who have confused the definitions of socialism and communism.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=socialism

Quote

so·cial·ism

1. Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.
2. The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which collective ownership of the economy under the dictatorship of the proletariat has not yet been successfully achieved.

1: a political theory advocating state ownership of industry
2: an economic system based on state ownership of capital

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=communism

Quote

Communism

1: a form of socialism that abolishes private ownership 2: a political theory favoring collectivism in a classless society

A theoretical economic system characterized by the collective ownership of property and by the organization of labor for the common advantage of all members.
---
Communism
1. A system of government in which the state plans and controls the economy and a single, often authoritarian party holds power, claiming to make progress toward a higher social order in which all goods are equally shared by the people.
2. The Marxist-Leninist version of Communist doctrine that advocates the overthrow of capitalism by the revolution of the proletariat

OK, so maybe I don't hate being the one to tell you you're wrong.


If you are even farther out there than I thought, and you actually believe socialism does not represent more government control and intervention, then you are beyond discussion and I'll leave to do as you will.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

Please, just answer my posts - all of the points.

Please just ignore my posts, as I have found that will be the best way to deal with you.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

But the notion that the religious/conservative brainwashing of the youth is effective - yep - I agree. In time they willbe convinced we don't need guns, press, privacy etc.... all in the name of being scared of terrorism..... now why is it that I'm leaving this great country, or at least planning to????

err...the brainwashing phase is while they're at home - as soon as they leave the roost their opinions begin to diverge substantially from that of their parents and church picked for them.

[miked10270 0]

Quote

Quote

Please, just answer my posts - all of the points.

Please just ignore my posts, as I have found that will be the best way to deal with you.

OUCH!

Mike.

Edited to suggest that we keep the criticism on point & constructive!

Taking the piss out of the FrenchAmericans since before it was fashionable.

Prenait la pisse hors du FrançaisCanadiens méridionaux puisqu'avant lui à la mode.

[billvon 3,120]

> Your little third grade definitions . . . .

Cut it out. (That goes for both EBSB52 and Kennedy.) Take personal attacks to PM's - or better yet avoid them altogether.

>Please just ignore my posts, as I have found that will be the best way to deal with you.

While it is good advice to ignore someone who makes you angry, the key to ignoring someone's posts is to not read them - and more importantly, to not respond to them. Otherwise we end up with a flamewar based on two people 'ignoring' each other which isn't productive.

[skydyvr 0]

Quote

But the notion that the religious/conservative brainwashing of the youth is effective - yep - I agree. In time they willbe convinced we don't need guns, press, privacy etc.... all in the name of being scared of terrorism..... now why is it that I'm leaving this great country, or at least planning to????

Guns? I think you're looking at the wrong party on that one.

. . =(_8^(1)

[EBSB52 0]

Quote

I hate to be the one to tell you, but it is you, not I, who have confused the definitions of socialism and communism.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=socialism

Quote

so·cial·ism

1. Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.
2. The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which collective ownership of the economy under the dictatorship of the proletariat has not yet been successfully achieved.

1: a political theory advocating state ownership of industry
2: an economic system based on state ownership of capital

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=communism

Quote

Communism

1: a form of socialism that abolishes private ownership 2: a political theory favoring collectivism in a classless society

A theoretical economic system characterized by the collective ownership of property and by the organization of labor for the common advantage of all members.
---
Communism
1. A system of government in which the state plans and controls the economy and a single, often authoritarian party holds power, claiming to make progress toward a higher social order in which all goods are equally shared by the people.
2. The Marxist-Leninist version of Communist doctrine that advocates the overthrow of capitalism by the revolution of the proletariat

OK, so maybe I don't hate being the one to tell you you're wrong.


If you are even farther out there than I thought, and you actually believe socialism does not represent more government control and intervention, then you are beyond discussion and I'll leave to do as you will.

There appear to be as many definitions as there are dictionaries. You site is apparently a repository of biblical reference also, which explains its slant toward hating Socialism. Here is the home page from your site:

http://dictionary.reference.com/help/about.html

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.
WordNet ® 1.6, © 1997 Princeton University
The Free On-line Dictionary of Computing, © 1993-2001 Denis Howe
Jargon File 4.2.0
CIA World Factbook (1995)
Easton's 1897 Bible Dictionary
Hitchcock's Bible Names Dictionary
U.S. Gazetteer, U.S. Census Bureau

CIA, Bible dictionary, Bible names, etc.... a real bastion of objectivity. Here's an internet resource that I objectively found:

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=socialism

1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods

2 a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state

3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

Between Capitalism and Communism. The government collects the property to be be redistributed to the people in a fashion that is beneficial to the whole, as in socialized medicine. In Communism the idea is to collect and control the assets of the government for the benefit of the government. Hell, there is a collection process here that ends up being 40% including sales tax and we don't get socialized medicine, so how does that differ? We must be Socialists or even Communists then. Fuerthermore, there are so many applications and interpretations of Socialism that it can't be painted with a broad brush; here are more:

http://www.britannica.com/search?query=socialism&submit=Find&source=MWTEXT

Truth is, contemporaryt Socialism is the control and collection of a country's assets for redistribution for the people. Our taxes aren't that much lower, so you hype is unfounded. Here's another deficition:

Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.

The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which collective ownership of the economy under the dictatorship of the proletariat has not yet been successfully achieved.

http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/socialism

So the state does not own the property, they are in charge of redistribution. Also, the second reference indicates that dictatorship of the proletariat (working slob) has not be achieved, meaning that Communism has not been achieved. Many countries enjoy this state of being between Capitalism and Communism w/o leaning either way, so control of the people is not the agenda.

Ultimately I disagree with your biblically misguided version of Socialism and think that I have supported that your version more resembles Communism.

OK, so maybe I don't hate being the one to tell you you're wrong.


Why would you, I'm not.

If you are even farther out there than I thought, and you actually believe socialism does not represent more government control and intervention,...

Intervention yes, control no.

[EBSB52 0]

Quote

> Your little third grade definitions . . . .

Cut it out. (That goes for both EBSB52 and Kennedy.) Take personal attacks to PM's - or better yet avoid them altogether.

>Please just ignore my posts, as I have found that will be the best way to deal with you.

While it is good advice to ignore someone who makes you angry, the key to ignoring someone's posts is to not read them - and more importantly, to not respond to them. Otherwise we end up with a flamewar based on two people 'ignoring' each other which isn't productive.

What did I write to be included in that? I let the 3rd grade thing roll off, even though it is an attack.

Considering "RoadRash" called me "bad rubbish," the 3rd grade comment is mild.

"Later! As far as I am concerned, individuals who give up on the US can leave whenever they so choose. I plan on fighting for my rights, including those written in the Bill of Rights and others afforded by the constitution...When someone just gives up and says they want to or plan to leave because they don't like what they see or hear...well, good riddance to bad rubbish...... "

I said I'm looking at leaving the US one day, he replied by writing that people who want to give up and leave are bad rubbish.

On a lighter note, I laughed when I read that Keneddy wanted me to ignore his posts right after he answered mine and then saying he ignores me.

[EBSB52 0]

Quote

Ok, why don't you take these personal barbs to PMs and stop wasting space here......

~R+R...

"Later! As far as I am concerned, individuals who give up on the US can leave whenever they so choose. I plan on fighting for my rights, including those written in the Bill of Rights and others afforded by the constitution...When someone just gives up and says they want to or plan to leave because they don't like what they see or hear...well, good riddance to bad rubbish...... "

You called me "bad rubbish" - please show me where I lashed out at you. Show me where I threw barb at anyone in this thread.

[EBSB52 0]

Quote

Quote

But the notion that the religious/conservative brainwashing of the youth is effective - yep - I agree. In time they willbe convinced we don't need guns, press, privacy etc.... all in the name of being scared of terrorism..... now why is it that I'm leaving this great country, or at least planning to????

Guns? I think you're looking at the wrong party on that one.

Well, not exclusively. Did you her/read that Bush would sign the extension to the Assualt weapon ban if Congress put it before him? Bush Sr had his NRA card yanked for pissing them off. Both parties want the guns out of the hands of the people.

[jdhill 0]

Quote

Did you her/read that Bush would sign the extension to the Assualt weapon ban if Congress put it before him?

He said that, but probably knowing that it would never get there.

J

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. - Edmund Burke

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Both parties want the guns out of the hands of the people.

Bzzzt. Incorrect.

"Republicans and President Bush strongly support an individual right to own guns, which is explicitly protected by the Constitution's Second Amendment... We believe the 2nd Amendment and all the rights guaranteed by it should enable law-abiding citizens throughout the country to own firearms in their homes for self-defense... We oppose federal licensing of lawabiding gun owners & national gun registration as a violation of the 2nd Amendment and an invasion of privacy of honest citizens."
Source: GOP Platform Issues

"A shocking level of gun violence on our streets and in our schools has shown America the need to keep guns away from those who shouldn't have them - in ways that respect the rights of hunters, sportsmen, and legitimate gun owners."
Source: DNC Platform Issues

[billvon 3,120]

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Attorney General nominee Alberto Gonzales told the Senate on Tuesday that he supports extending the expired federal assault weapons ban.
. . .
Gonzales pointed out that his brother Tony is a SWAT officer in Houston.

"I worry about his safety and the types of weapons he will confront on the street," Gonzales said. "The president has made it clear that he stands ready to sign a reauthorization of the federal assault weapons ban if it is sent to him by Congress. I, of course, support the president on this issue."
-------------------------------------

Sounds like the Bush administration agrees 100% with the DNC's position on assault weapons.

[EBSB52 0]

Quote

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Attorney General nominee Alberto Gonzales told the Senate on Tuesday that he supports extending the expired federal assault weapons ban.
. . .
Gonzales pointed out that his brother Tony is a SWAT officer in Houston.

"I worry about his safety and the types of weapons he will confront on the street," Gonzales said. "The president has made it clear that he stands ready to sign a reauthorization of the federal assault weapons ban if it is sent to him by Congress. I, of course, support the president on this issue."
-------------------------------------

Sounds like the Bush administration agrees 100% with the DNC's position on assault weapons.

Yepperoony - don't be fooled by the smokescreen.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Sounds like the Bush administration agrees 100% with the DNC's position on assault weapons.

My comments were directed at this (bolding is mine): "Both parties want the guns out of the hands of the people."

We may be interpreting differently what he meant by "the guns". I presumed that he meant all guns by that comment. Your comment was directed at only a small sub-class of guns.

You can find lots of people who want some type of gun banned. But you can find relatively few people who want all guns banned.

[billvon 3,120]

>"Both parties want the guns out of the hands of the people."

From what I can tell, both parties want 'assault weapons' out of the hands of the people. Both parties also claim to protect second amendment rights when it comes to ownership of other types of guns.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

>"Both parties want the guns out of the hands of the people."

From what I can tell, both parties want 'assault weapons' out of the hands of the people. Both parties also claim to protect second amendment rights when it comes to ownership of other types of guns.

Which is only somewhat honest. There is a vocal minority of people, mostly from the DN side of things, that wants all guns out of the people's hands, but will reluctantly settle for a piecemeal approach to get there. The record is very clear for folks like Feinstein and Schumer.

[billvon 3,120]

>There is a vocal minority of people, mostly from the DN side
>of things, that wants all guns out of the people's hands, but will
> reluctantly settle for a piecemeal approach to get there.

That's like saying the republicans want to revoke the entire bill of rights, but will reluctantly settle for undermining a piecemeal approach by first weakening the right to trial by jury, which they have in several cases. You could believe that, or you could believe that they really think that only in one specific case (fear of terrorism) they should make an exception.

Both parties have stated they would support the assault weapons ban, but also support the right to own a gun. A nonpartisan, non-conspiracy-theory view of that would be that both want to ban some guns and permit others, which is what leaders in both parties have said.

[EBSB52 0]

Quote

Quote

Sounds like the Bush administration agrees 100% with the DNC's position on assault weapons.

My comments were directed at this (bolding is mine): "Both parties want the guns out of the hands of the people."

We may be interpreting differently what he meant by "the guns". I presumed that he meant all guns by that comment. Your comment was directed at only a small sub-class of guns.

You can find lots of people who want some type of gun banned. But you can find relatively few people who want all guns banned.

Right, what ^ he said. In thegeneral essence of gun ownership and 2nd A rights, both parties have no issues with more restriction, the left might be a little more obvious about it, but legislation bears no innocense.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

That's like saying the republicans want to revoke the entire bill of rights, but will reluctantly settle for undermining a piecemeal approach by first weakening the right to trial by jury, which they have in several cases. You could believe that, or you could believe that they really think that only in one specific case (fear of terrorism) they should make an exception.

Both parties have stated they would support the assault weapons ban, but also support the right to own a gun. A nonpartisan, non-conspiracy-theory view of that would be that both want to ban some guns and permit others, which is what leaders in both parties have said.

total horseshit. The record is clear. As mayor, Feinstein pushed and passed legislation that banned guns in SF. Proved to be illegal, however, and was killed. Only a liar would say that she is for gun rights, but just interested in banning "assault weapons." (BTW, she doesn't give a shit about the entire bill of rights either) A non partisan would recognize that gun control was one of the issues that cost the Democrats the White House in 2000, and why they've run from the issue as much as possible since then. The party has allowed some of the safe district types to blare out about it some, but that's it.

I haven't figured out why Bush has lied and said he would sign an extension. The GOP certainly does not support such an action - the 1994 passage was a key factor in the GOP taking over Congress. He'll sign that legislation around the same time he'll admit taking down Iraq was a bad move.