Director Adam McKay: SCOTUS Ruling in Favor of Free Speech is ‘Treason’
by John NolteYou see, Hollywoodists like “Step Brothers” director Adam McKay believe that only the Huffington Post, George Soros, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, NBC, NPR, The New York Times, The L.A. Times, Big Labor Unions, and GE (through NBC and MSNBC) should be allowed to use unlimited resources to affect the outcome of political campaigns.
Corporations, big and small, however, just need to shut the hell up. Unless, of course, that corporation is MSNBC or any of those listed above. Confusing, right? Well, thank heaven (and Citizens United) that five wise men on the Supreme Court also went, “Huh?”
You would think that no one would be a bigger champion of an unfettered First Amendment than a leftist Hollywood director. But if you think that, you haven’t been paying attention.
Two separate looks at how the landmark SCOTUS decision is playing out. You decide which point of view is most concerned about the health of our democracy…
Hollywood director Adam McKay:
What the Supreme Court — specifically Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, Alito and Kennedy — has done, is nothing short of a violent coup for the corporations to seize control of our government. There’s no violence yet, but it will come in the form of many more profit-driven corporate wars in the molds of Vietnam and Iraq and the jailing of millions more non-violent offenders to fuel the corporate built and run prisons. Not to mention dramatic rises in the crime rate as the middle class completely disappears.
What (I’ll write their names again, because they should not be forgotten) Roberts, Thomas, Scalia, Alito and Kennedy are guilty of is treason. There is no other name for it. Using very flimsy law, they have betrayed the very idea of our nation, a nation founded on checks and balances as a way to dilute concentrated power. Because time and time again it has corrupted and distorted. We saw the devastating effects of big business’s hold on government with the robber barons and the Great Depression in the early 20th century, but the corporations reconstituted and waited with an inhuman silver-dude-from-Terminator-2-like patience.
Steve Chapman in Real Clear Politics:
The result was not in much doubt after the justices heard the [Citizens United] case. The government lawyer defending the statute was asked: If movies financed by corporations may be banned because they express opinions on candidates, how about books?
“It’s a 500-page book, and at the end it says, ‘So vote for X,’ the government could ban that?” asked Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. Replied the Justice Department attorney, “Well, if it says ‘vote for X,’ it would be express advocacy and it would be covered by the pre-existing Federal Election Campaign Act provision.”
If the corporation wanted to publish such a book, he continued, “we could prohibit the publication of the book using corporate treasury funds.” We could prohibit the publication of the book. …
Once you grant the government that sort of power, it is bound to expand. Newspapers could be forbidden to make endorsements. Right now, media companies are exempt from the ban. But why should a newspaper be free to spend money urging voters to support a candidate, while other companies are not?
Critics fear that freed from constraints, giant corporations will burn vast sums to help or hurt politicians. In reality, most business people are not about to plunge into divisive election campaigns, for fear of antagonizing customers.
And there’s your disconnect between Hollywood and the real world. “Antagonizing customers” isn’t considered a bad thing in Tinseltown. There it’s called a resume enhancer. And McKay is certainly lost on this point, as well. His film “Step Brothers” opens with a partisan joke ridiculing George W. Bush.
Bravo! Bravo! Bravo! to Citizens United for winning a landmark victory crucial to a healthy, robust political debate. And it looks as though we also owe you our thanks for helping to once again smoke out these Hollywood types as the Fascists-In-Waiting they really are.
NOTE: Please file this post in your folder marked: Gee, Why Does Hollywood Love Hugo, Fidel, and Che?
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
298 Comments
I'm normally a pretty loquacious guy but I have no idea what to say to someone this blatantly stupid.
To me it looks like the SCOTUS leveled the playing field and made it fair…….
OH THAT RIGHT YOU LIBTARDS, PROTARDS, AND DEMOCRATS DON'T LIKE FAIR.
It was interesting. I saw some numbers on corporate giving to political campaigns v. union giving on Fox last night. From corporations, the money is pretty much evenly split (49/51%) between Democrats and Republicans. On the other hand, union giving heavily favors Democrats with only 8% of giving going to Republicans. There is no reason to believe that these numbers will change much even with this ruling, and if corporate money does begin to favor Republicans more … well, it might start to counterbalance the union voice somewhat.
Personally I don't like corporations and unions telling us who to vote for. I like the government telling us what we can and cannot say even less.
How about "your eyeglasses are much too small for your fat face" and "your movies suck". Just sayin'.
This ruling didn't not change the 1st Amendment protections for an individual American citizen.
No, it just watered down the influence of individual citizens.
Instead, the voices of individual citizens must compete with corporations and unions more now. How is that fair?
But what's to stop all those media corporations from being foreign-owned, as well?
There might be a law I'm unaware of but to exempt media corporations — 95% of which are left-leaning — is outrageous.
You mean about Nolte? Yeah I must admit you are correct.
To truly understand this point of view, one must first unscrew their head, put in on a shelf, and forget about it for a while. No intelligence needed.
First off, this is a wonderful example of just how the left views We The People. Are we smart enough to make up our own minds? Can we look at a campaign ad, hear their message, determine the source, and then come to a reasonable conclusion?
No. Because we're idiots. That's what the far left lunatic fringe thinks about they're fellow Americans. We are just too stupid. We're automatons who blindly do what ever the glass teat (h/t Harlan Ellison) vomits out at us. The left has no respect for the common man. As a matter of fact, they detest the common man. We won't just roll over and let our elitist superiors create their socialist Utopia.
It's from this mind set that all other perverted ideas and plans of the left come from. Since we're too stupid to know better, it's up to the left to do what ever is necessary in order to subvert our idiocy , for our own good, of course.
Cheat on elections to get Franken in the Senate? Not a problem. It's for the greater good. Insult, lie, libel an opposing politician? Sure, it's for the greater good. Charlie Rangle caught red handed cheating? No problem, Charlie is one of us, let's just hush it up and press forward.
At it's core, modern liberalism says they care about the rights of "man," but in the process, they seek to destroy the rights of "men."
Wherever the left finds itself in power it uses totalitarian tactics to control the debate. Venezuela, Cuba, the former Iron Curtain and modern academia come to mind as great and obvious examples. But in the United States, the left, to an absurd extent, controls the communication streams, punishes dissenters, accuses those whose voices of McCarthyism while exerting something far more pervasive, pernicious and longstanding that anything Sen. Joseph McCarthy could have dreamed up. The "dissent is patriotic" crowd — Adam McCay beings its lead joker — crafts an empty slogan that puts their political enemy on defense while it uses every communication, legislative and political tool in its vast arsenal to shut up the dissenters. That's what McCain Feingold was all about. Watching the left wrap itself around the "First Amendment" while puking on it is grotesque. The American left is the enemy of the First Amendment and its anti-free speech legacy on college campuses (speech codes), in civil rights movement (thought crimes laws), in Hollywood (mercilessly punishing the dissenter in their midst through firings, non-hiring, whisper campaigns, endless stream of left-wing propaganda) shows that those trips to Venezuela and Cuba to dine with and to toast tyrants are no anomaly. Adam McCay and his punk-ass buddy Will Ferrell are either enemies of the state or willing dupes of a political movement that demands that Americans suppress its most sacred Constitutional right, free speech. We are at war with these totalitarians — because they declared war on us a long time ago. We were too busy trying to pay for all their failed social engineering programs and raising our families to notice the degree to which they succeeded. But now we have. We are awake. The next ten years are not going to be pretty for the pretty Hollywood left. And revenge will be sweet.
"You see, Hollywoodists like “Step Brothers” director Adam McKay believe that only the Huffington Post, George Soros, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, NBC, NPR, The New York Times, The L.A. Times, Big Labor Unions, and GE (through NBC and MSNBC) should be allowed to use unlimited resources to affect the outcome of political campaigns."
Thank you John! Game over! How insulting is it to be told to whom I am allowed to listen?
Except for corporations like the mainstream media — 95% of which are left-leaning — they don't water down the voices of individual citizens or anything, right?
Breathlessly void of logic. Disconnected from human nature.
If you are going to continue to make my point for me I might have to get a real job.
It's amazing how hypocritical the Hollywood Left can put a mark on like that. I have a new film that could be mis construed as propaganda.
If Hollywood REALLY cared about free speech, you would see more films that lean right.
Check out my new film The Last Eagle Scout: lasteaglescout.com (shameless plug)
Oh. So you are one of those "jobs saved" people?
(Responding to your own post is soooo not awesome.)
Good point.
There may be a downside. If a foreign corporation has a US subsidiary they will also enjoy these rights under the new free speech ruling. Wouldn't that be foreign influence in US politics, US elections? Where's national sovereignty in all this? I'm not a lawyer, so please help me out on this one.
Prisons are big business! You don't think so?
Good point: Media corporations can also be foreign owned. I see the "fairness" argument coming through then.
However – I'd still say whether is from Citizens United or the NYT- on either side we should all keep in mind that when we extend 1st Amendment rights to corporations ("media" or otherwise)… we go beyond what the Bill of Rights intended. We water down the rights of American Citizens and we extend rights to foreigners.
Nolte, where do you dig up these idiots? It really is hard for me to fathom that they truly do exist and gives me renewed compassion that you have to live and walk among them out there.
Wow, this article sets a new precedent for mindless drivel.
I do give credit for raising a new concept for analysis: the idea of linking media corporations with other corporations in how they portray candidates or issues. The increasingly blurry differences between news and entertainment on otherwise news reporting outfits makes this concept worthy of critical analysis.
Regardless, the SCOTUS was flat wrong on this ruling. It just proves the right doesn't want judges who follow the Constitution, they want judges who are activists for right wing ideology. Bottom line: money is not free speech. The fact some people have money and some don't, those who have money have more influence over politicans than those without, therefore money does not constitute free speech because it gives undue power and influence to those who happen to have it. Everyone is allowed the right of free speech, it shouldn't be a province of the wealthy because they happen to have more money.
I had to compete against MSNBC, NBC, CBS, CNN, the NYT, Time, Newsweek etc. I had to compete against ACORN and SEIU. Was THAT fair? Now at least the corporations get to weigh in on who they think represent their best interests, 'and it certainly won't be liberal Democrats.
That's really why liberal democrats have a problem with this, admit it. Don't try to act like they really care about EVERYONE'S 1st Amendment rights.
The accurate definition for Treason is Usurper POTUS. S/HE THAT REMAIN SILENT; CONSENT. Federal standing specifically related to political question doctrine issues, thus far, have not yielded to various legal theories, further substantiating serious need for the correct legal path involving BHO+POTUS+NBC=UNKNOWN??????? The DC District Court under the DC quo warranto statute is the correct and most expeditious legal path. Nowhere in U.S. history is Natural Born Citizen defined that allows a person with any form of divided loyalty to be POTUS. US History, as well as US Code is unambiguous involving Natural Born Citizen, to insinuate other, is to perpetuate dangerous propaganda founded in an insidious desire to out maneuver and manipulate tax paying legal US citizens. Those in the White House, Senate, Congress, lower Courts, Press, and the MSM have perpetuated FRAUD. And this is TREASON. To attack SCOTUS for treason is not only ridiculous, it is baseless given the obvious involving BHO's own statements about his father not ever having been at any time a U.S. Citizen.
References:
-1758 Vattel’s “The Law of Nations” –The Framers relied on many of the principles to write the Constitution
-1787-1788-The Federalist Papers, including Justice John Jay’s letter to George Washington
-Article II, Section I, United States Constitution
-The Naturalization Act of 1790-repeal of “Natural Born” from the 1790 Act in 1795
-The Framers of the 14th Amendment-(citizenship granted, not Natural Born Citizenship); Rep. John Bingham and Sen. Lyman Trumball define Natural Born Citizen
-Congressional Hearing on Dual Citizenship, 2005, “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” discussion.
FACT: SARAH PALIN, AS THE GOP VP CANDIDATE IN THE 2009 ELECTION WITH 50M+ VOTES, IN ACCORDANCE WITH US CODE, HAS UNIQUE LEGAL STANDING BEFORE US FEDERAL COURTS TO CAUSE LEGAL DISCOVERY FOR FULL DISCLOSURE OF BHO+POTUS+NATURAL BORN CITIZEN=UNKNOWN. NET: SARAH CAN TAKE ACTION THAT CAN CAUSE THE NATURAL BORN ISSUE TO COME FULL CIRCLE. Any USURPER POTUS IS BY ITS VERY NATURE TREASON. The Supreme Court is not able to do anything until there is a ruling in the lower federal courts. So where do-tell is Sarah Palin? Oh that's right, my bad, she has moved on, she got a better gig working for those Saudi [UAE] owners at FOX.
We're not talking about the rights of "men", we talking about the rights of "corporations".
Maybe you should screw on your head right so you appreciate the distiction.
And foreign corporations couldn't wield influence over a George Soros or NBC/GE?
For that matter, a guy like Soros isn't a U.S. citizen is he?
It's true- corporations like to hedge their bets, and they tilt ever so slightly for Republicans/conservatives. Unions favor almost exclusively liberal democrats/greens/working families party.
All we do know is help balance the media's influence.
Then we agree. But if Walmart doesn't have the same rights as GE/NBC or George Soros, then any restrictions must be across the board.
The only person who tells you who to vote for is YOU. Or do you let others tell you how to vote??? Are you union?
Jesu Christos, but THank You. There is nothing so sweet as a genuine war cry, and I am so looking forward to shoving this down the leftists' throats. I can take being insulted; I can take being called "mean", "meanie", "mean-spirited", and other childish taunts that display the childish mentality of the leftist.
But forcing me, as a citizen & taxpayer, to be complicit in suppressing my own liberty to speak is too much. The only galling part is knowing that, 10 years from now, we'll be listening to leftists explain how it was thier idea all along, and if we just modify the law a little and partially restrict corporate speech a little to bring it back to the "true way" everything will be hunky dory.
Before the SCOTUS ruling, Hillary Clinton got very generous donations from the ChiComs. Are you worried about her being "owned" by the Chinese?
Adam McKay…what a tool!
The left IS the common man. But you're right too, you're idiots. Advertising works, that is why you can't make up your own minds. Its proven every single day by the things people do. I mean, people actually believe Rush LImbaugh. A LOT of people. You can't get more idiotic than that.
That moron lost ten man-points for not knowing when DLR left VH and when Sammy Hagar was hired (hint: they'd just finished the 1984 tour – ahem, repeate, 1984 tour) & their first Van Hagar release, 5150, went #1 in 1986.
Do the math, McKay, do the math.
I guess I should have written "Our Constitution enshrines our God-given right to free speech" rather than "grants the right"; but I'm sure everyone here knows what I meant.
Wow, you can't get much more ignorant than this fool. Nothing he says is right. . . not a single word!
Is it me or is that guy totally BAKED!?!
Sorry cog, you just got SCHOOLED, ha ha …………………………Hanzo
Money is not free speech!
I'll write their names one more time as well: Alito, Roberts, Scalia, Kennedy and Thomas (I saved the best for last). By the way, thank God George W. Bush won in 2004 or neither Alito or Roberts would be on the Supreme Court. Just think who John Kerry would have nominated.
Steeerike two, cog, are you a masochist, or what……………………Hanzo
Agreed. This article sets a new precedent for mindless drivel.
Who cares if they're foriegn owned? The right to speak is absolute & doesn't depend upon where you were born or who you know. The right to free speech is granted by God to every human being, even brain-dead liberals, and our Constitution requires our government to uphold, fight, & defend the right. The rights aren't granted solely to citizens, but to anyone in our country.
And if a foriegn corp. has invested money to give Americans jobs, then why shouldn't they be allowed to speak on issues that concern them? Nissan is right down the road from me; if they're good enough to employ us & pay our taxes, then why wouldn't we support thier right to speak about issues that concern them?
Aren't corporations owned and made up of 'men'?Way to take it personally, cog. Methinketh thou doth protest too much, you're starting to get shrill. Just sayin' …………………………..Hanzo
The predominate majority of MEDIA are owned by just five [5] corporations. These five [5] corporations are predominately foreign owned. The tax paying legal U.S. citizens have, for the most part, been controlled and duped. This includes the left and the right. And now that these facts are [mostly word of mouth] being considered by many, these foreign owners are "expecting the media employees" to do the jobs they have been paid handsomely to carry-out. Its simple. The perpetuation of propaganda and intimidation and constant distractions.
Very true. But now it's supported by law. (In any case, I don't have a crystal ball, so it's only hypothetical.)
Adam McKay needs to first, go buy some glasses that actually fit his inflated head (and ego), and second, stick to his silly high school humor projects. Every time McKay steps off the comedy "stage" and climbs up to the political soapbox he exposes himself for an ignorant, gas filled, social troglodyte…
This guy's ignorance is truly mind-numbing. If he thinks Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, Alito and Kennedy are guilty of treason, he should go to the Supreme Court building and arrest them. What a complete moron.
The First Amendment — rated E for Everyone.
The left is THE common man if you are a deluded barking moonbat. People believe msm/olbernut/media matters/madcow/matthews/HuffHo/Kos/Daily Beast/BHO. A LOT of people. You can't get more idiotic than that. Fixed it for you…………………….Hanzo
So let me get this straight, you think police departments and the court systems are jailing innocent people just to keep the prisons full to make more money for corporations?
Is that really what you're saying??
Dude, I'm ready to throw on a kilt, paint my face blue and white, grab a war hammer and start bludgeoning Hollywood leftists…..
It was supported by law before — the law allows foreign ownership of our media and the media can use unlimited resources to affect the outcome of elections.
If you want to restrict EVERY COMPANY — including the media — i will still disagree with you but at least give you points for consistency.
And Step Brothers was a pile of cinematic excrement….
Wow, someone taking a shot at Rush Limbaugh (who you know has NEVER listned to the man's show for more than however long the sound bytes last on the Daily Show)…how imaginative! How creative! You must work in Hollywood!!!
Who is this douche-bag? I've never heard of him. And doesn't Step Brothers star another font of Lefty wisdom, Will Ferrell?
And let's not forget, McCain-Feingold was written for one two-fold purpose: protect incumbents from (and defeat) the NRA.
I have always been among those who believed that the greatest freedom of speech was the greatest safety, because if a man is a fool, the best thing to do is to encourage him to advertise the fact.
Who cares what that fairy thinks? His movies reek.
I go with heavily retarded and mildly stoned
No, we're talking about freedom of speech as clearly stated in the second amendment of the constitution.
Perhaps you should screw your head out of your ass and have a look around.
The Supreme Court ruled Congress does not have the authority to criminally prosecute those attempting to distribute political information to me. My right to hear free speech takes precedent over Congresses desire to be the final arbiter over who is allowed political speech.
Hence the term "Congress shall make no law abridging freedom of speech"
What part of that don't you understand? If you'd rather live in a country where the government decides who can speak, and who can't, and what they can say, and what they can't, there's a great little two room hovel waiting for you in Cuba. I'll be happy to chip in $5 for your one way ticket too.
This is the classic example the education system hard at work. This is the kind of logic that is acceptable these days? This guy should reject all corporate connections
Power company
Caterers
Airlines
Lighting manufactuers….
You get my point
WHAT A BOZO
Thanks to SCOTUS is my choice again!
School isn't a bad thing.
IS George Soros an American Citizen?
I contend that neither Walmart, nor GE/NBC, nor the SEIU should have the same rights as an American Citizen.
of course. Aren't you?
What was Step Brothers?
I'm all for corporate sponsored political advertisement. If they believe in small government, free market capitalism, then I'm more than happy if they spend their money (from consumers buying their products) to support candidates who also support small government, free market capitalism.
Allowing the government to dictate who can or can't say what they want, when they want, is anti-American (ahem … McKay).
—-
"For true patriots to remain silent, is dangerous." Samuel Adams
You make an interesting point, but I wouldn't try to go there, personally.
Until the battle to insure all American Citizens get their God-given rights is over, don't bother me about everyone else. We have to have priorities.
The First Amendment protections apply to all persons within the jurisdiction of the United States. The First Amendment states "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech . . . ." It does not mention anything about citizenship. Additionally, the Supreme Court has used the "Due Process Clause" of the Fourteenth Amendment as a vehicle to make the protections of the First Amendment applicable to the states. The "Due Process Clause" states "nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, and property, without due process of law . . . ." Note, it says "any person" not "citizen".
Persons who live here (legally or illegally) who are not citizens already have the same free speech rights that citizens have, so do people who visit here. Thus, this ruling does not extend First Amendment rights to foreigners who are within the jurisdiction of the U.S, they already have them.
I'll second that.
Yowzah, Andrew! Way to speak for The People!
in the presidential primaries, Hillary brazenly flouted laws against foreign contributions by having Sir Elton John perform at an exclusive fundraiser for her campaign. the round-heeled, spineless FEC pretended to care/investigate and eventually issued a twisted ruling that declared it ok (even though a precedent existed for NOT allowing an artist to even donate paintings under very similar circumstances).
if this is what passes for enforcement of our laws banning foreign involvement, then i say throw the doors open and let the free-for-all begin!
Mr. Nolte,
You criticized the most sane parts of McKay's rant. You failed to mention the following:
"the jailing of millions more non-violent offenders to fuel the corporate built and run prisons."
"Not to mention dramatic rises in the crime rate as the middle class completely disappears."
Of course, you may have blocked it out because your mind could not wrap itself around such sheer lunacy.
Democrats and the left like to think of themselves as the common man. But they're not. They're elitist and they detest the common man. Just look at what they do to any common person who dares step in their way. Joe the Plumber ring any bells? How about Obamacare debates and negotiations on C-SPAN? Not a chance. They don't want the unwashed masses to muddy up their plans.
At a higher level, it comes down to the rights of the collective vs. the rights of the individuals. The left believes the rights of collective trump the rights of the individual, while America is premised on the rights of the individual over the rights of the collective.
Europe is also very big on the 'rights of man' vs. 'rights of men' which is why they think they're so much better than us lowly barbarians. We have yet to evolve to a higher state like they have.
What these highly evolved brilliant entities of the left in America and Europe have yet to figure out, the rights of the individual do nothing to hinder the rights of collective (unless you start getting into eminent domain and stuff like that – but that's another subject).
The rights of the collective over the individual mean that I must give up my rights for the greater good. But my rights as an individual do not force anyone else to give up any of their rights.
according to SCOTUS it is: Buckley v. Valeo, 1976
Excuse me, but how in the world can Dinbatus possibly fit the SCOTUS majority or this case into
18 U.S.C. § 2381: Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason.
Adam Gadahn al-Amriki? Yep. Johhny "Taliban" Lindh? Yep. Jodie Evans? Yep. Jane Fonda? Yep. Antonin Scalia? Hell, no.
Too, funny!
So now speech = campaign contributions and people = corporations, and foreign corporations at that (in Scallia's own words) Nice to see that we've squashed "judicial activism"
I for one welcome GE, ACORN, and SEIU playing a bigger role in politics. Oh and let’s not forget Al-Jazeera and various Saudi princes… the Chinese government, yep.. lets spread the freedom around. I was really beginning to the think the average American Citizen was WAY too powerful a force in our democracy.
look people, liberal = bad , conservative = good is only a general rule people. Your enemies can never screw you over as badly as your "friends"
We're both right!
News flash Coggy, that's how its always been. How much did the unions throw at Obama last year? $100 million? $200?
You should skim over the ruling and transcript, you might learn something.
By the time Stewart's turn at the podium was over, he told the court that the government could restrict the distribution of books through Amazon's digital book reader, Kindle; could prevent a union from hiring a writer to author a political book; and could prohibit a corporate publisher from publishing a 500-page book if it contained even one line of candidate advocacy.
The FEC was on a death spiral against the first amendment, McCain-Fiengold only increased the speed. The Supreme Court said enough is enough.
You may fear other's free speech, I don't. My vote belongs to me and me alone. Corporations, unions, non-profits and any other group or individual are free to try to convince me, but they can not compel me. The power of my vote resides in me, not in some one's ad budget.
Be a man, stand up, and take responsibility as a citizen to become educated and wisely vote according to your own reasons. No corporation can take that away from you unless you let them.
Unless your major happens to be transgendered, women, baboon studies. In which case, welcome to the wonderful world of fast food retail sales.
Rules for Radicals provides the organizer with a tactical style for community organization that assumes an adversarial relationship between groups of people in which one either dominates or is dominated.
“The first rule of power tactics is: power is not only what you have but what the enemy thinks you have.”
“Wherever possible go outside the experience of the enemy. Here you want to cause confusion, fear, and retreat.”
“Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules. You can kill them with this. They can no more obey their own rules than the Christian church can live up to Christianity.”
You're talking about "elitism". If you think only the left has elitists, and the right has none, you are delusional.
Joe the Plumber is certainly a common man, ie. an idiot. Not to mention a liar, a tax cheat, and a successful user to profit from right wing cheerleading. He gets credit for that though, he got rich off right wing idiocy. Lots of people do.
I agree with you 100% about individual rights and value of such rights. Your perspective on Europe and rest is just naive ideology blowharding.
Beat me to it again.
Curses!
Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon. It is almost impossible to counterattack ridicule. Also, it infuriates the opposition, who then react to your advantage.”
“The threat is generally more terrifying than the thing itself.”
“In a fight almost anything goes. It almost reaches the point where you stop to apologize if a chance blow lands above the belt.”
“Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.”
One of the criteria for picking the target is the target’s vulnerability … the other important point in the choosing of a target is that it must be a personification, not something general and abstract.”
“The enemy properly goaded and guided in his reaction will be your major strength.”
Did a silver-dude-from-Hollywood give McKay some bad crack?
That would be the First Amendment you're citing – the Second Amendment gives us the means to enforce the First Amendment, should it come to that.
Not to broadcast my naivety, but who the hll is Adam McKay? But more, why must I digest these pearls of swine – shut up and direct!
The right to speech is free. The right to vote is yours. That's where you're wrong.
Like most of the left, you appear to believe that people are incapable of making up their own mind, therefore they must be protected. And who gets to decide who's prevented and who's not? The politicians who are getting filthy rich in the process.
We are not children, we are American citizens. Government can not legally prevent us from access to all sides in a political and electoral debate.
We expressed ourselves quite clearly about that in 1776 but they don't seem to get it….
[...] Defense of the First Amendment: “Congress Shall Make No Law” John Nolte, Big Hollywood: Director Adam McKay: SCOTUS Ruling in Favor of Free Speech is ‘Treason’ Diary of a Mad Conservative: SCOTUS rules to protect free speech The Divine Lamp: The Supreme Court [...]
It's the corporations, man! It's all about money and the corporations! Big business, man! Doing…corporate stuff…
Whenever a liberal uses the word corporation (or some form of the word) more than once in a paragraph, my eyes start to glaze over.
huh? Rupert Murdoch is a Saudi? Whatever you're drinking, can you send a case my way?
I never debate on the gounds of a leftist. That's how they wrap you 'round their axle. They lure you into the deep water of woulda, coulda, shoulda… Since truth and facts and history work against them, this is all they have left. Tantamount to shouting "Bush Lied People Died" and "Mission Accomplished" in opposition to the Iraq War.
I can't prove a negative. Can't prove something will NOT happen. So let him rant like a madman.
What I can prove is that his position on thie matter is unprincipled, biased, and not based on any intellectual ground whatsoever. He's an ideological warrior for the Left. That's the only reason he believes "certain" people should not be granted the same speech freedoms as his precious Huffpo.
and not a sharp one, even by the standards of the Hollywood shed…..
[...] Video: America Rising: An Open Letter to Democrat Politicians John Nolte, Big Hollywood: Director Adam McKay: SCOTUS Ruling in Favor of Free Speech is ‘Treason’ Conservatives4Palin: Stand Up for [...]
Had I listened to the teacher's union during the 2004 campaign, I would have voted for Jahn Kerry … or a mangy dog if it wore the (D) after its name.
The union called me no less than three times a week, and they told me pretty much literally that "my union had determined the best cadidate for me to vote for." That was in addition to the mailers promising that my job was surely in jeopardy if I didn't vote for Kerry.
Had I been less of an independent thinker, I might have been in trouble, but no one tells me who to vote for. Certainly no one tells me like that.
what is money then, in your view?
What about before this now struck-down law existed? Was the country in an unconstitutional state by default and then came into constitutionality with it?
Do you seriously believe that some "just happen" to have more money than others? Is this bad?
Anyone that is influenced by the ads that anyone puts out does not belong voting in the 1st place…leave it to responsible adults.
Oh and to whomever it was, there is NO constitutional right to vote in a federal election. Neal Boortz (amongst many others) can set you straight on that one.
The right doesn't have elitists? I'll assume you're too young to remember Nelson Rockefeller and his wing of country club republicans. They were just as dismissive of the common man as are the modern leftists elitists.
Joe the plumber was a guy playing catch out in his yard when the Obamanation rolled up and made him news. And if you never find yourself short of money at tax time, consider yourself lucky. But don't worry, the democrats are doing everything they can to remedy that and make sure every one is in trouble at tax time.
As for my opinion on Europe, perhaps you should do a little research before judging me. I realize its a philosophical debate that's only been raging in Europe for 300 – 400 years. So it's easy to see why you might have missed it.
So, my husband's company doesn't get to have a voice because they're German even though they employ hundreds of workers scattered across the coutry? I guess the message then becomes don't work for a foreign company because they can't fight against legislation that might cost you your job.
You are right, thanks for the correction. Some times in the heat of debate my brain works faster than my fingers.
You must be logged in to post a comment.