I have commented several times -- most recently here -- that the establishment press and liberal interest groups have been pointing with alarm to positions Judge Roberts advocated in his memos during the Reagan administration that, to the rest of us, all seem to fall within a range that extends from persuasive to common sense. Today, the Washington Post contributes another chapter in article written by Mike Allen and R. Jeffrey Smith.
First, there is the lack of balance maneuver. Note this early paragraph:
Advocacy groups said Roberts's pledge to respect established rulings is one indicator of how he might approach Roe v. Wade, which established a right to abortion. Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, which supports abortion rights, said Roberts gave "lawyerly answers" and is "running a political campaign to create the appearance of open-mindedness."
Note well, there is only one group quoted here, not groups, and -- surprise! -- it is one critical of Roberts. But maybe I'm being unfair. Maybe Allen and Smith quoted Nancy Keenan of NARAL in a subtle attempt to undermine these "advocacy groups" because her comments were so outlandish. Imagine: a federal appellate judge and former appellate lawyer with a reputation as one of the best giving "lawyerly answers"! What, one wonders, does she, or should we, expect? Of course, Ms. Keenan does have remarkable powers of perception. She can tell, for example, that Judge Roberts is in fact close-minded, and that appearances to the contrary are just that -- appearances.
But one other remarkable assertion in this paragraph is not Keenan's at all, but Allen's and Smith's: they write that Roe v. Wade established a right to abortion. They seem to have forgotten that the script calls upon them, and others, to deny that activist judges create rights, that the preferred usage is some version of recognized or found rights in the Constitution. To admit, as they did, that the right to abortion was established by the Court gives added, though I'm sure unintended, weight to what is ostensibly the subject of their article, "Judges Should Have 'Limited' Role, Roberts Says."
Roberts echoed the views of President Bush in describing his judicial philosophy. Roberts said that he views the role of judges as "limited" and that they "do not have a commission to solve society's problems, as they see them, but simply to decide cases before them according to the rule of law."
Responding to a question about judicial activism, Roberts said, "When the other branches of government exceed their constitutionally-mandated limits, the courts can act to confine them to the proper bounds. It is judicial self-restraint, however, that confines judges to their proper constitutional responsibilities.
On the one hand liberals claim, now, that they don't like activist judges, but on the other they are afraid of judges who will not "establish" rights that can be found only in the "emanations and penumbra" of the Constitution.
Now note the following two paragraphs:
Separately, new documents released by the National Archives from Roberts's tenure as a senior adviser to the attorney general during the Reagan administration make clear that he was deeply skeptical of the court's recognition of a citizen's fundamental "right to privacy" -- the legal concept that underpinned its historic 1973 decision upholding a right to abortion.
Although the documents do not spell out Roberts's personal views on abortion, they add to previously released documents suggesting that he had more in common with those who dissented from the court's reliance on "fundamental rights" than he did with the rulings of its majority.
First, in describing Roberts' own writing about privacy, Allen and Smith highlight their own use of "established" by, correctly, noting that Roberts stated his skepticism over the Court's "recognition" of a fundamental privacy right.
Much more revealing, however, is the second paragraph above, where Allen and White implicitly assume that Roberts' opinion of Roe v. Wade -- or the kind of opinion he would have written had he been on the Court at the time -- is wholly determined by his "personal views on abortion." That is, they seem unable to comprehend that one's view of whether or not the Constitution contains a fundamental right to privacy can be independent of one's "personal view of abortion."
In this Allen and White both reflect and contribute to the current liberal infatuation with the notion that law is no more than politics in another arena.
There's more, of course. Roberts is shown through his early memos to have agreed with such unsavory characters as former Solicitor General Erwin Griswold and Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black, men formerly admired by liberals. Moreover, if you can believe it, Roberts "supported the repeal of rules barring schools from receiving federal funds if they had discriminatory dress codes." I'm not sure what a "discriminatory dress code is," but surely all right (which is to say, left) thinking people would want the federal government intimately involved in monitoring such codes.
Finally, Roberts is shown to have opposed "itrusive remedies which have not been proven to be effective."
s an example, Roberts wrote: "We no longer demand busing, so disruptive to the education of our children, or quotas, which have been so divisive in the workforce."
What? He opposed (opposes) both busing and quotas? How can the Democrats and their "advocacy groups" possibly tolerate such a candidate?
[Cross-Posted on DISCRIMINATIONS]
Posted by John Rosenberg at August 03, 2005 09:35 AM
Categories: Washington Post
Comments
"That is, they seem unable to comprehend that one's view of whether or not the Constitution contains a fundamental right to privacy can be independent of one's "personal view of abortion.""
More "implicit assumptions" heh? The two can be separate, and they can color each other. Mentioning that one is not in the documents does not mean that there must always be a connection.
"Finally, Roberts is shown to have opposed "itrusive remedies which have not been proven to be effective." "
Who is implicitly assuming things here? You, who claim that this is alarm? Or the washington post, that simply is giving us robert's opinion? Without digging around for "implicit assumptions" and other tinfoil hat theories?
Posted by: actus on August 3, 2005 09:53 AM
It seems like the Washington Post is bound and determined to insure Roberts gains the complete support of the GOP. Hmmm maybe he is a Souter.
One can only hope he doesn't follow in the tradition of Frankfurter, Black, Fortas, or Marshall.
Posted by: TJ Jackson on August 3, 2005 09:50 PM
Sending the Message:
Opposition is the message: Loud and Clear. Democrats in particular and the Left in general oppose all things Republican and all things Bush. They can't help themselves because they are blinded by red hot hatred. Opposition, opposition, delays and opposition, If Bush wanted to increase the Minimum Wage, or ban private ownership of handguns, or any one of the Left's favorite nostrums, angry opposition would be the Left's knee-jerk reaction.
Specific objections to Roberts is only a part of the Left's campaign of unending opposition. Roberts could be the reincarnation of FDR and the Left would object to putting a cripple on the Court.
Recall the phrase, Honorable Opposition. Well, forgetaboutit. That's old hat, yesterdays news.
The Democrat Party is now the Party of Hate, Demagogues, Opposition, and Corruption. Forgetaboutum. They Left has no ideas, no legitimacy, and no future. They are the problem.
Posted by: Black Jack on August 4, 2005 11:12 AM
The Democrat Party is now the Party of Hate, Demagogues, Opposition, and Corruption.
Only toadies on the Left take cheap shots, clearly.
Posted by: Ed on August 4, 2005 02:05 PM
"Allen and White implicitly assume that Roberts' opinion of Roe v. Wade -- or the kind of opinion he would have written had he been on the Court at the time -- is wholly determined by his 'personal views on abortion.'"
And all this implicit assuming flows from a sentence that declares the documents "do not spell out Roberts's personal views on abortion." The authors reason that he had "more in common with those who dissented from the court's reliance on 'fundamental rights' than he did with the rulings of its majority."
Can we implicitly assume Roberts isn't touching off the bloodbath you hoped for, at least not just yet?
The Court is about to tack another notch right and Republican-appointed appeals court judges outnumber their Democratic counterparts by a margin of 98 to 68.
It's morning in America. Katherine Harris on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee will seal the deal.
Posted by: steve on August 4, 2005 07:00 PM
So?
We didn't elect conservatives to appoint liberals.
Posted by: Rich on August 4, 2005 09:59 PM
Isn't it kind of interesting that the New York Times rabidly opposes the Patriot Act because it supposedly violates the privacy rights of terrorists, but they think it's perfectly all right for themselves to go through the private and very personal adoption records of a man whose only crime is being nominated to the Supreme COurt by a Republican President?
Posted by: V the K on August 5, 2005 05:55 AM
Yea, Ed, you can call it a cheap shot if you want. I can take it. But I said what I said because but it smacks of accuracy. Our country is under attack by bloodthirsty terrorists and the Left's response is to slime President Bush and to oppose sensible steps to protect us.
I'm disgusted with the Hate America First crowd and don't mind letting them know that what they hate is what they have become. I'm not sorry the truth offends Lefties, they need to hear it, wake up, face up to the harm they're doing, and start making amends.
As it stands now, as far as I'm concerned, the Left has disqualified itself from serious participation in the national dialogue. They simply fail to add anything of value to the issues which confront our Republic and our people. I wish it weren't so, but it is.
Posted by: Black Jack on August 5, 2005 07:24 AM
Black Jack sputtered in a style resembling Sharon:
"Yea, Ed, you can call it a cheap shot if you want. I can take it."
Ed was just point out your blatent and typical rightwing hypocrisy. And we're sure you "can take it". You're the man, after all. I mean, look at all of the deep insights you've offered. There's uhh....hmm....and...uh....well... can't really think of any now, but you may have accidentally had one sometime in the distant past.KB
"But I said what I said because but it smacks of accuracy."
It only "smacks of accuracy" in your little mind, or other's little minds who "think" the way you do, or should I say don't. You should just run away like Sharon does. You're ideas are much better when you don't respond.KB
"Our country is under attack by bloodthirsty terrorists"
"Under attack". BWAHAHAHAHAHA That's a good one. Let's see....Now how many terrorist attacks have there been in the nations history? One. How many people were killed 3,000+? Now, how many people were killed by "terrorists", whatever that means, in the past 40 years worldwide? I'd say the number is probably less than was killed within the U.S. by their own hand guns. If you want to worry about something, perhaps you should be a little more realistic about where the real danger lies. Also, given the U.S. record of committing terrorist acts don't you think you should be a little more concerned about them as they are the ones which YOU are responsible for? Oh, I forgot, only the "other guys" are terrorists. Yeah, that's what every country has said throughout history. THEY are the terrorists, whoever THEY are, and WE are the anti-terrorists, right? BJ get your priorities straight. We can take it!KB
"and the Left's response is to slime President Bush and to oppose sensible steps to protect us."
Bush's policies have predictable increased the terror threat, what do you expect? Of course, many countries throughout history have also often encouraged terrorism as it gives them the pretext to do whatever they want, wherever they want, in the name of "protecting themselves". What do you recommend as sensible steps, killing everyone else in the world so that we don't have to worry about "them" anymore? The old irrational, illogical, and, well, just plain ignorant, "preventive war" doctrine? I have a great idea, BJ. What don't we practice a little terrorism prevention by, say, not supporting them in the first place, funding them, training them, and assisting them in every way possible, so that later when we screw them and they turn on us, as has happened quite a few times now, we don't need to worry about them? Now that's an "Hate America Crowd" idea if I've ever heard one. This is my recommendation because I'm "anti-American". Could it be any more obvious? Actually, everyone on the left "hates America" because they actually make criticisms, and everyone knows that criticism equals hate. I mean, my fater used to criticise me when I screwed up, but rest assured it was because he hated me. So did my basketball coach. So did my piano teacher. They all hated me!(cry, cry)KB
"I'm disgusted with the Hate America First crowd and don't mind letting them know that what they hate is what they have become."
And we can easily tell by the tone of your typing that you're probably just levitating from your compassion and lack of anger. And your projection of your anger onto the rational, logical, and intelligent left, is becoming more refined. I mean, it still stands out like a sore thumb, but, well.....BJ, son, it is YOU that are angry. I'm surprised your fingers can stay on the keys long enough to push them down from all the shaking you MUST be trying to contain. It's quite easy to tell that you're like a Coke that's been shaken up more about a week and are either ready to explode, or have already. Relax, BJ, if you explode it will be difficult to wash all of that ignorance off of your monitor.KB
"I'm not sorry the truth offends Lefties"
The truth that you're a joke offends us in that we have to claim you as one of our species. How do you think that makes us look when we're trying to save the whales and they ask us if you're really one of us? Then we have to explain to them that there were some gentically modified persons which we call rightwingnuts, and that they shouldn't judge us negatively just because a few folks are aberrations. But then they ask us why allow you to live, and we tell them we have to have something to laugh at in this world of ours.KB
"they need to hear it"
Not from the likes of you. We'll listen when someone has something to say. You don't, so don't even think about pretending that you do, pseudo-patriot.KB
"wake up"
Oh, we're wide awake. And even though you do almost bore us to sleep with you never-ending barrage of regurgitated rightwing radio one-liners, we may miss something really funny. There's almost a guarentee that you will produce something which will keep us laughing for a few hours, or longer.KB
"face up to the harm they're doing"
Yes, I see the harm all the time. Now, where dod you say the harm was?KB
"and start making amends."
You helped to cause the terrorism, YOU make the ammends you in-denial imbecile. YOU wake up and start taking responsibility for TYOUR actions. And YOUR action were helping to create the terrorists. If you think anything even remotely different then you simply have never read a book, know nothing about history, and are nothing but an indoctrinated totalitarian-minded psedo-patriot apologist. And, Jim, remember, even though I called BJ a feww names, as correct as correct can be, he can take it! He told us so. However, if he does start crying to you because I accurately pointed out his pathetic hypocrisy and ignorance, just tell him that he "can take it".KB
"As it stands now, as far as I'm concerned, the Left has disqualified itself from serious participation in the national dialogue."
Well, we don't really care about your concern, only in so far as it makes things worse and we will do everything in our power to make sure you do not succeed. What's really funny is that BJ is almost be definition a true anti-American and he doesn't even realize it.KB
"They simply fail to add anything of value to the issues which confront our Republic and our people."
Sorry, but you've just projected your own pathetic shortcomins onto the left, as usual. It is YOUR ilk who fail to take the necessary steps to do much of anything regarding anything. Yes, if we only let folks like you be in control we'd be a much better country. It would look like Soviet Russia in about a week.KB
"I wish it weren't so, but it is."
Well, take heed, your wish came true. It isn't so. What I wish is that you would seek therapy, read a few books, or even one, and come back when you had something of substance to offer. I guess we'll never see him again. Perhaps you could take an English class with G.W.
Oh, and Sharon, I know you've ran away from the other posts as you were unable to deal with the mounds of information I gave you helping to prove my points and helping to squash yours, but just one more thing about the wage-slavery which you had never heard of, and, as predicted, would balk at during your history lesson from me, that wage slavery was not seen as much better than chattel slavery was the slogan for the Republic party back then, so you shouldn't balk at someone when they're trying to teach yo about the history of your own side, even though they weren't really your side back then, when they were much more correct in their positions.KB
Posted by: KB on August 5, 2005 08:44 AM
"Oh, and Sharon, I know you've ran away from the other posts as you were unable to deal with the mounds of information I gave you helping to prove my points and helping to squash yours."
KB, I already told you why I quit posting. You are a pathetic loser, that's why. And knowing you'll have to post again to say you "won," this is the last post I will make about anything you say.
Posted by: sharon on August 5, 2005 10:15 AM
Sharon attempted to speak:
"KB, I already told you why I quit posting."
I don't take orders from you. Save them for your husband, cow.KB
"You are a pathetic loser, that's why."
Oh, well, I guess that's all the proof and reason I needed. More of that rightwing scholarship, huh. Just because you're unable to respond to any of the hundreds of pages of data I gave you, know nothing about history and don't like be shown, and run whenever the facts provided don't match your warped mis-perceptions and clash with your depraved belief system, thereby, causing you to go into convusions, hardly makes me the loser, charletan. You're just angry because I made you look the idiot, several dozen times I might add. Can't you take it like Black Crack, or whatever his name is, you whiner.KB
"And knowing you'll have to post again to say you "won," this is the last post I will make about anything you say."
I don't "have" to do anything. I 'want' to post again because I 'did' win, and I made you look like the incompetent buffoon you are. It is kind of cute how you are already worried about your own inability NOT to respond to me after knowing that I would respond this time. Perdictable, as usual, but cute. Now, shut the hell up and go back to the kitchen where your rightwing husband thinks you belong, and where you, too, support the positions of those who believe the same. Have you ever thought about joining a knitting blog or something where you "might" have something to offer? Take Black Jerk with you, as he has nothing to offer. He can take it! He said so, and that's all the proof I need. Let's see if you or he writes to Jim to complain about my pointing out your lunacy. Remember, Jim, they can take it. Don't worry.KB
Just had to respond again, didn't you, Sharon? AHAHAHAHA You're funny. Oh, and by the way, you weren't talking about the topic of this post, and I thought this went against whatever insignificant dribble of pricipal you had, wage-slave-suppoting Hypocrite.KB
Posted by: KB on August 5, 2005 11:19 AM
"Just had to respond again, didn't you, Sharon? AHAHAHAHA You're funny. Oh, and by the way, you weren't talking about the topic of this post, and I thought this went against whatever insignificant dribble of pricipal you had, wage-slave-suppoting Hypocrite.KB"
Proof positive that you can talk a lot and yet say nothing.
In your "discussions" with Sharon, SHE appears to be the sane one. You just like to hear yourself "talk". I bet you re-read your posts constantly don't you? I bet you print them out and hang them up in your room, worrying your mother, or whatever legal guardian was appointed to look after you, because they never see any centerfolds of pretty girls or anything that would give them the comfort of knowing you're straight. No matter, nobody here likes you, and from this point on I will skip over your comments as well.
So blab away all you want. It's your time you're wasting.
Posted by: Rich on August 5, 2005 05:41 PM
Rich said in the defense of the indefensible:
"Proof positive that you can talk a lot and yet say nothing."
Proof positive of nothing. Here, I'll point out for you what I said in these two little sentences.
1.I said that Sharon would have to respond again after saying that she wouldn't. IN other words, she can't control herself and she lies, which anyone reading her previous posts would already be aware of.
2.I said she was "funny" because she can't control herself. This is a demonstrable fact.
3.I used Sharon's own idea/principal of not responding to the post against her. She clearly doesn't respond to the post here. Just another observable fact, and demonstration of her weakness and hypocrisy.
4.I finished by emphasizing the non-controversial
point of her ignorance about wage slavery which she didn't know existed before "attempting" to make an argument about it by saying that it didn't exist, at least until I sent her some links showing her some of the radicals like Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine, etc...had all talked about it, and was the slogan which the Republican party ran on.
So, Rich, there are at least four things which show that I do SAY something. Just because you are unable to read and comprehend doesn't mean there's nothing there. As a matter of fact, YOUR response here has been meaningless so far. Were you going to make some sort of argument about anything, or just come th the rescue of someone who set their own boat on fire? Shall I point out more things for you?KB
"In your "discussions" with Sharon"
I assume you have put quotations around "discussions" to emphasize the fact that she doesn't try to have any. If not, then, once again, I should emphasize your inability to read and comprehend. Or, perhaps you just like people who call names and then cry about the other person calling names. Or, perhaps you like when people run from mounds of data when produced. I cold keep going, but this is as boring as trying to make Sharon read.KB
"SHE appears to be the sane one."
"Appears" seems to be the operative term here. And to you, yes, it may seem that way. I mean, after all, if I were to be debating Sharon about the world being round, she of course thinking it was flat, it's highly possible that there would be a lot of people with such mis-perceptions of reality. It's no big deal, and hardly a surprise. Were you ever going to challenge me on something, or just pull a Sharon and sit there and whine? Geez! For people who thrive off seeing blood spilled around the world, without taking any responsibility for it, of course, you sure do whine a lot.KB
"You just like to hear yourself "talk"."
Well, if my choices are listening to myself, or listening to someone whine about Big Foot, UFO's, and other non-existant things, you may be right. Perhaps if you offered something right now instead of worrying whether or not I like to hear myself then I could listen to you. You haven't offered anything yet, exactly like Sharon.KB
"I bet you re-read your posts constantly don't you?"
Nope, don't need to. You should be able to tell by my many spelling mistakes that I don't go back to read them. I would correct my mistakes if I wanted to take the time. The only time I go back is when I feel that I should pull out some of the 'actual' history of the conversations to prove that what the other person is saying is incorrect, or to support my position. Given your ilks propensity to flush things which you can't respond to down the memory hole, a very deep and wide one I might add, I do find it necessary to go back from time to time and slap you upside the head with what you've ignored. It's quite okay. You type are professionals at it.KB
"I bet you print them out and hang them up in your room, worrying your mother, or whatever legal guardian was appointed to look after you, because they never see any centerfolds of pretty girls or anything that would give them the comfort of knowing you're straight."
Wow! You're the man dean, with the little d notice. You rant on me without knowing what you're talking about and then turn around and do exactly what you accused me of in your opening sentence. You ARE as funny as Sharon. You guys aren't conjoined at the forehead twins are you? I mean, you do share a similar, how should I say, VERY narrow view. You guys are both funny. I have an idea. Why don't you, Black Crack, Sharon the runner, Androol, and whoever you can find to all try to attack me at once. I mean, true I'll still have the advantage, but I'll give you a chance.(snore)You're boring.KB
"No matter, nobody here likes you, and from this point on I will skip over your comments as well."
Given your ability to not be able to read and comprehend them that's probably a pretty good idea. I mean, I would ask my 7 year old son to read Bertrand Russell either. Stick to Curious George, Dean, the abridged version, I mean.KB
"So blab away all you want. It's your time you're wasting."
Oh, I will. As long as there are buffoons like you guys out there I'll blab away all I want. And I'll decide if it's my time I'm wasting, not you. Obviously I've managed to waste some of your time as well since you wrote these statements which contained no content.KB
Posted by: KB on August 5, 2005 06:40 PM
Here's a link to a little reality regarding the media for a change. For those of you who study and know the media and public perceptions nothing here will be a surprise. For those of you who know nothing about the media, you know, you think it's "liberal", these facts may make you cringe. I love it when I see people cringe when having some of mythologies of their systems dispelled.KB
http://www.americanassembler.com/issues/...
Posted by: KB on August 6, 2005 02:53 AM
Rich, it's ok. Believe me, I tried to have a rational discussion about a whole variety of issues with KB, but he descends immediately into name-calling and baiting. When he loses an argument (such as about abortion), he immediately changes the subject and says he "didn't lose." He finds sites that support his worldview and refuses to admit when he's wrong about any of it. And he can't even simply shut up. He'll jump to the next thread to see what snarky comment he can come up with. Just watch.
KB quit taking his Paxil. That's the best explanation for his behavior, which borders on psychotic.
Posted by: sharon on August 6, 2005 07:59 AM
Ahhh Sharon crawled from the sewer to say:
"Rich, it's ok."
Yes, Rich, you can take solace in Sharon's comforting, but worthless, sympathy, she shares while still trying to aviod the TONS of information I gave her to challenge.KB
"Believe me, I tried to have a rational discussion about a whole variety of issues with KB"
You have? When? You are simply incapable of having a rational discussion, I mean, of course, unless the person you're speaking to agrees with everything you say. THEN you can have a "rational", or at least what 'you' think is rational, discussion. It's quite easy to look back and find all of those times where you tried.KB
"but he descends immediately into name-calling and baiting."
Once again, Sharon projects her own pathology onto the person making her look the fool. You REALLY should have this looked at by an expert, or even any drunk off the street could easily identify it.KB
"When he loses an argument (such as about abortion)"
AHAHAHAHAHA "Loses an arguement"? To you? You never won any argument regarding abortion. All you did was rant on and on about how it's killing a baby. Simply because you have a loud mouth doesn't mean you win the argument. More of that rightwing rationale, huh?KB
"he immediately changes the subject and says he "didn't lose.""
I didn't change the subject once, and I never lost an argument to you once. Is it alzheimers? You really don't need to try a create events from the past hoping that the new folks won't go back to see that you're lying through your false teeth again. And, incidentally, you've just projected again.KB
"He finds sites that support his worldview and refuses to admit when he's wrong about any of it."
Not at all. You just never proved me to be wrong about anything. Not once. As a matter of fact, as far as I'm aware you never even looked at the sites I offered. And, incidentally, you're projecting again. It is you who sent me a total of two I believe links bith of which were little more than rightwing opinion pieces with no facts at all. On the other hand, I sent Sharon MANY links full of facts. She responded to a grand total of ZERO, as was to be expected. Now, in a move that's even more pathetic than I thought her capable of, she's trying to steal my own one liners which I correctly used against her. Come up with your own material, you "great writer" you.KB
"And he can't even simply shut up."
And she's projected once again. Almost every line out of her mouth is nothing but pathological projection. She's said now several times that she wasn't going to respond, or talk about me anymore, but SHE CAN'T STOP. What does she do, in typical anti-Chomskyan fashion, she's says it's I who can't stop. I've never mentioned stopping, nor do I intend to, especially if you want me to. On the other hand, YOU are the one who said you were going to but can't. You're really quite funny and pathetic.KB
"He'll jump to the next thread to see what snarky comment he can come up with. Just watch."
Only if you make some dumbass comment which deserves to be "snarked". You have many comments on other threads which I haven't touched. I could have, but didn't really see the need to there.KB
"KB quit taking his Paxil."
Sharon's projection, once again. She whines and says that I name-call, makes statements like this, which I do, but she's a hypocrite in that she pretends not to.KB
"That's the best explanation for his behavior, which borders on psychotic."
Yes, on the other hand your behavior is completely rational and normal. I mean, look at everything you had to offer during this comment. As usual, nothing. Still haven't responded to any of the arguments I put forth, huh, Sharon.
See, Rich, perhaps you don't know, but I put forth about 20 arguments a comment, and asked Sharon to do the same. She ran for the mountains everytime and never responded. She lied continously. Then she lied about lying, of course. Basically she's a sad joke and looking for some support from you. I think you should giove it to her. She really needs it. And you could really help her to help herself, since I know that's what you rightwingers like to do, by teaching her to read. And emphasize the comprehension part because she has absolutely no clue about that.KB
Posted by: KB on August 6, 2005 09:50 AM
Has there been any consideration or progress toward that filter option I asked for?
Posted by: Black Jack on August 6, 2005 10:36 AM
I only wish they would, Black Jack. :)
Posted by: sharon on August 6, 2005 05:08 PM
BJ said:
"Has there been any consideration or progress toward that filter option I asked for?"
What's there to consider? You don't believe in freedom of speech, but freedom of ignorance, on you part, is okay? Hmmmmm Just more of the typical rightwing totalitarianism. I have a keen idea, Black Jack. Why don't you shut your whining rightwing trap and make some sort of argument. Ever heard of that? Sharon hasn't, so don't ask her. Anyway, she's to busy lying about her life as a wannabe liberal before she turned off the light and became whatever that is she claims herself to be now.KB
------------------------------...
Ahhhh...Yes. Sharon speaks, yet again:
"I only wish they would, Black Jack. :)"
Now isn't that sweet. Two little censors sitting and wishing for something that I'm sure even Jim would balk at. You see guys, in the U.S. people can say what they want, thanks to the left. Even you. Now, I know they were stretching it when they decided that folks like you should be able to speak at all, but being the generous liberals they were, they felt that, yes, even 'your type' should have the right. I mean, I think so too. The more you write the better as far as I'm concerned. Pouring out your depraved worldviews for everyone to wittness is a great help to the other side(s). It's even a great help for those who may not really have a side. They can look at your writing and say "Well, I'm not really sure what I am, but I know it's NOT that."
Now, were either of you whiners actually ever going to make an argument, or just whine about one of the few people on this feelie-good blog for folks with misperperceptions about the media? Anything? Even just one little idea? Nothing? Again? Anyway, don't worry BJ. This is how Sharon gets when she hasn't taken her gonadotropin-releasing hormone ([Gn-RH]) for her Dysmenorrhea.(Sharon probably doesn't even know what this is, nor will she appreciate the lesson). ANyway, here's a little present again for you NOT to speak to, even though it has EVERYTHING to do with this entire blog. It's about people like you and your misperceptions. You know, those things I continue to point out, but which you refuse to believe because of, well, your misperceptions. Perhaps you should just take one day off and try to study a little bit about propaganda in the U.S. and how it works. Now, I'm quite well aware that due to your indoctrination that yo9u probably don't even believe the U.S. uses any form of propaganda, and that's the genius of it. You aren't supposed to think it exists, and you don't. But, rest assured, not only does it exist in well-oiled form, as the U.S. spends billions of dollars each year on it, it's influence is felt across the world, though most people in other countries can usually see right through it with ease. Here are your lessons for today, children:
Assignment 1
Go to this blog, read everything it says, and show why you believe it not to be true. And an answer of "Because I don't agree with it" will result in your receiving an F, again.
Assignment 2
Read these short posts and try to make something resembling educated comments. I know this will be tough, but pretend you're a liberal.
1)http://www.thirdworldtraveler....
20/Manufac_Consent_Prop_Model....
2)http://www.zpub.com/un/chomsky.html...
3)http://www.chomsky.info/articles/199710-...
Now, these readings are quite short and should take no longer than about 5 minutes each. I'll be waiting for your responses.(Now, knowing that they won't be able to answer, let's see what kind of excuses they'll give. "This has nothing to do with the blog(cry)". "You can't make me(cry, cry)". You are trying to change the subject.(cry, cry, cry)"
Anyway, respond or be prepared to receive criticism for not responding and fail the class.
Posted by: KB on August 6, 2005 05:47 PM
I'll keep him occupied here with some off the wall topic. Maybe he won't hurt himself before his mother arrives to put him to bed.
Topic of Discussion:
Liberals imposing their sexual "education" to minors in public schools are just compensating for their sexual inadequacies.
Discuss!
Posted by: Rich on August 6, 2005 06:52 PM
Sharon didn't say:
"I'll keep him occupied here with some off the wall topic. Maybe he won't hurt himself before his mother arrives to put him to bed."
Oh, so you're going to avoid any serious discussion which challenges your entire belief system by reducing yourself to a conservative. I see. Well, I would have guessed as much. And it's your mother that will be tucking me in.KB
Topic of Discussion:
"Liberals imposing their sexual "education" to minors in public schools are just compensating for their sexual inadequacies."
Liberals don't impose sexual education to minors or anyone else. They just shut, or open, their mouths and do it. And for a rightwing conservative to talk about "sexual inadequacies" is a little absurd, don't you think? If it wasn't for liberals teaching the conservatives about sex in the first place your father would still be spanking his monkey to his William F. Buckly Jr. poster in the bathroom. See, I can degenerate myself into a conservative, too. So, you WEREN'T going to speak to the topics which I offered, which include within them every post on this blog? Didn't think so. I'll just wait to see what your next evasion will be.KB
Discuss!
Posted by: KB on August 7, 2005 01:02 AM
"I'll keep him occupied here with some off the wall topic. Maybe he won't hurt himself before his mother arrives to put him to bed.
Topic of Discussion:
Liberals imposing their sexual "education" to minors in public schools are just compensating for their sexual inadequacies.
Discuss!"
http://www.armchairsubversive.com/...
What is to discuss?? Liberals are not the one's with sexual hangups....
Keep up the good work KB!!
Posted by: Rob Johnson on August 7, 2005 05:37 AM
"Liberals are not the one's with sexual hangups...."
"At the same time, conservatives are slightly more likely than others to be very satisfied with their relationship and sex lives."
http://abcnews.go.com/primetime/news/sto...
Good job of sending KB over the edge once again, Rich. Notice the perpetual snide comments and endless chatter from the left. All because I said a filter would be nice to have. BTW, filters are not "censorship" of your first amendment rights, since censorship can only be imposed by the government. But hey, why would a liberal actually know anything about the law?
Posted by: sharon on August 7, 2005 05:55 AM
KB is a classic example of Better Red than Dead. With nimble fingers. Read Kipling's DaneGold.
Posted by: Walter E. Wallis on August 7, 2005 11:42 AM
KB is a classic example of Better Red than Dead. With nimble fingers. Read Kipling's DaneGold.
Posted by: Walter E. Wallis on August 7, 2005 11:42 AM
Thanks Rob! I never realized it was so difficult to teach someone how to ride a tricycle with training wheels.
"Liberals are not the one's with sexual hangups...."
"Good job of sending KB over the edge once again, Rich."
Only Sharon could read Rich's and my statements and think she wittnessed Rich sending me "over the edge". But then again she thinks she sees all sorts of things in the media which don't exist either. AT least she's consistant(ly) wrong.KB
"Notice the perpetual snide comments and endless chatter from the left."
Just to clarify your perception a little, Sharon, which things did you see that you believed to be snide? Also, where is the endless chatter you believe you see? Is it Elvis and Big Foot talking about seeing Sant flying a UFO at Wounded Knee?KB
"All because I said a filter would be nice to have."
We KNOW that your totalitarian ilk would love to silence those who don't think like them. You don't need to tell us that. It's one of the hallmarks of the indoctrinated totalitarian-minded pseudo-patriotic censors to want to silence those who tell the truth. I don't think you should be filtered out. I enjoy reading and laughing at grown people who still believe in the tooth fairy and talk about her as if she were real.KB
"BTW, filters are not "censorship" of your first amendment rights, since censorship can only be imposed by the government."
And the next thing I love is when the same ilk tries like hell to make their blatent attempts at censorship seem reasonable by calling it something else. I'm sure Stalin and Hitler both said there was no censorship in their countries either.KB
"But hey, why would a liberal actually know anything about the law?"
Because liberals are the ones who helped to make the laws so that you could have a right to sit around and lie publically without being held lynched for it. But hey, why would a rightwinger actually know anything about history? Yes, Sharon, we all have taken a law class in community college as well. Get your tuition back and sue them for malpractice.KB
" KB is a classic example of Better Red than Dead."
You're damn right it's better red than dead. You can't do anything if you're dead. If you're red, and it happens to be in one of the more negative red countries, then you can become a dissident and change the country. Can't do that if you''re dead. On the other hand, we have a huge mass of people who are supposedly alive which probably are functinally indistinguishable from the dead. I mean, look at Sharon, Rich, Black Jack....They're all over the place. My saying is better dead than them.KB
"With nimble fingers."
Not that nimble.KB
"Read Kipling's DaneGold."
I have. So? Read 'Learn how to Make A Rightwinger Look as Dumb as they are in One Easy Step: Let them Speak' by KB
"KB is a classic example of Better Red than Dead. With nimble fingers. Read Kipling's DaneGold."
Are you showing off that you can put the sentences together as well as seperate them? Instead of worrying about my fingers, why don't you make some sort of argument about the media? For instance, we can discuss the 'unpublished' preface to Orwell's Animal Farm, where he mentions that the way propaganda in the west works isn't really any different than that of the communist countries as represented in Animal Farm. Needless to say, the book, which isn't really that good, would never have been published at all had he added this part. The book is trivial because it only discusses 'the other' country and it's blatent shortcomings. It would have been much better had it been about his own country. But, like I said, it would never have been published. It would have been much more substantive though given the far greater development of propagnda in the western countries, as even recognized by Hitler when discussing WW1. He believed the west won the war primarily due to their highly developed use of propaganda and that 'next time around' they'd use it better. We know the results. Anyway, at least there were a few honest, though depraved, Nazis. Let's look at one of my favorite quotes which comes from Herman Goering. I suggest you rightwingers REALLY read this carefully, perhaps about 500 times, just to see if you see any of yourself in there, especially the last line:
Today's Lesson for you rightwing extremists. In addition to your previous homework assignment, of which I've yet to receive any, I expect your comments upon these quotes as well.KB
Quote 1
"Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger."
And then again there's Joseph Goebbels(My comments added):
Quote 2
"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.(Saddam was somehow a threat to the U.S., had WMD, etc...) The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie.(And thanks to the "liberal media" and folks like Sharon, Rich, and all the rest supporting the shield, or better yet, not even recognizing it exists at all, the lie can be maintained.) It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent,(In the U.S. it's done in a more sophistcated manner as Herman and Chomsky point out in great detail in Manufacturing Consent. In U.S. client states it's much easier. You just blow their heads off.) for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State."(Well, we know that Sharon and ilk aren't interested in truth, so I guess we know where they lie/lie;)KB
And then there's even the U.S. president offering similar words of wisdumb:
Quote 3
"See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda."—"G.W. Bush
Special Note:
Now, we'll really be able to tell the severity of their indoctrination when they come back with a "But he 'did' tell the truth. He didn't lie...." If they even infer such an absurd notion, it's pretty safe to say that they have proven, without a shadow of a doubt, that they ARE indoctinated and probably need to go to some form of deprogamming retreat similar to that used when extacting folks from cults.)KB
Quote 4
"The goal of modern propaganda is no longer to transform opinion but to arouse an active and mythical belief" Jacques Ellul
As is easily exemplified in most everything written by Sharon, Rich, Black Jack, etc....KB
And then there's the professor stating the obvious:
"Propaganda is to a democracy what the bludgeon is to a totalitarian state."N. Chomsky
*And a special note to you anti-Chomskyites who think and often make fallacious assertions about Chomsky being some sort of totalitarian, or even supporting them. Is it possible for you to see anything at all in the simple quote above which may indicate that he probably doesn't have a favorable idea about such systems? Just curious.KB
Okay, that's enough "endless chatter" for today.
Sharon's probably already slipping in to her new Louis Vuitton straitjacket which she bought with the money she saved by not paying her taxes.KB
Posted by: KB on August 7, 2005 02:47 PM
Rob, I just finished reading the link you provided. I had no idea that were this many Republican sexfiends. I mean I knew of about half of them, but.....I bet Rich may even be impressed. Perhaps he's just angry because he's not yet on the site. Don't worry, Rich, there's still time. And Rich, Sharon, etc... you can take heed in the "fact" that if you 'really' look hard enough, there were probably some liberals who made them do these things.KB
Posted by: KB on August 7, 2005 03:12 PM
Liberals imposing their sexual "education" to minors in public schools are just compensating for their sexual inadequacies.
I always figured it was about cultivating prey for sexual predators.
I wonder how Mary Kay LeTourneau feels about sex ed.
Posted by: V the K on August 7, 2005 07:01 PM
"All because I said a filter would be nice to have."
"We KNOW that your totalitarian ilk would love to silence those who don't think like them. You don't need to tell us that. It's one of the hallmarks of the indoctrinated totalitarian-minded pseudo-patriotic censors to want to silence those who tell the truth. I don't think you should be filtered out. I enjoy reading and laughing at grown people who still believe in the tooth fairy and talk about her as if she were real."
Nobody said anything about preventing you from writing. It's peculiar that the left equates "filtering" (i.e., my choice not to read your ridiculous blather) with "censorship" (the government preventing you from spewing your ridiculous blather).
According to Wikipedia:
Amendment I (the First Amendment) of the United States Constitution is a part of the United States Bill of Rights. Textually, it prevents the U.S. Congress from infringing on six rights. It forbids Congress from:
Establishing a state religion or preferring a certain religion (the "Establishment Clause")
Prohibiting the free exercise of religion
Limiting freedom of speech
Limiting freedom of the press
Limiting the right to assemble peaceably
Limiting the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances
The First Amendment only explicitly disallows any of the rights from being abridged by Congress. Over time, however, the courts held that this extends to the executive and judicial branches. The Supreme Court has held that the Fourteenth Amendment extends the limitations of the First Amendment to actions by the states.
"Yes, Sharon, we all have taken a law class in community college as well."
Then you must have been asleep during that class, as so many others.
"Get your tuition back and sue them for malpractice."
Why? I aced that class, but not at community college like you did.
Posted by: sharon on August 7, 2005 08:23 PM
K the B said:
Mary Kay LeTourneau may have gone to school where Rich was principal and where there wasn't any sex ed. This IS why she didn't apparently see anything wrong with what she was doing. Rich told her that she could get pregnant by thinking dirty thoughts. But then again she was probably confused because Sharon, Vice(in more ways than one)-Principal, told her that she could have an abortion by thinking dirty thoughts. Anyway, there's one thing for sure V the K, and Rob seems to have hit the connecting theme on the head. Perhaps it's due to the way she was raised and who she was raised by. Let's have a look:
"Mary Katherine Schmitz Letourneau, born on January 30, 1962, grew up as one of six children in a devout Catholic family in Orange County, California. Her father, John George Schmitz (1930-2001), was an ultra-conservative Republican state senator and one-term Congressman who led southern California’s right wing in the 1960s and 70s."
Well, there we have it. Yet another face for the link Ron offered. And who says that the problem with society is the dissolution of the family and strong conservative values?KB
Posted by: KB on August 7, 2005 11:02 PM
"Sharon, Vice(in more ways than one)-Principal, told her that she could have an abortion by thinking dirty thoughts."
More lies & snarky comments. Show where I said this, KB.
Posted by: sharon on August 8, 2005 06:31 AM
Also, note how KB changed the subject from "censorship" after being proved wrong yet again.
Posted by: sharon on August 8, 2005 06:32 AM
Sharon can't stick to her principles and says:
"More lies & snarky comments. Show where I said this, KB."
Uhhhh I think anyone with above a first grade education could probably tell that I made it up to demonstrate a point. Do I really need to explain every line to you? And I doubt many other readers are going back through the comments looking for where you may have said this.KB
"Also, note how KB changed the subject from "censorship" after being proved wrong yet again."
You proved nothing. As a matter of fact, I proved YOU wrong by pointing out that you can make claims about it being only the government which can censor all you want and it means squat. Trying to make some distinguishing difference between censoring and filtering is playing with words and is meaningless. Sharon, you CAN'T get me on anything, so just give up and go back to your closet and complain about the poor being lazy. Why don't you comment on any of the MANY things I've left for you. I mean, REAL issues, not things like you censor/filter invisable distinction. Anyway, why are you commenting at all? You said you weren't going to anymore. Once again, Sharon has tried to project her own patology onto me. She calls me a liar in her opening sentence and is evidentally unconscious to the fact that she has on many occasions said she wasn't going to respond again, hence, her repetitive lying. Secondly, the believes that she won some argument, and I'm sure in her little head she really believes she did, when she didn't even come close. She brought up a point which was a weak-*** attempt to construct an apologetic for censorship, not surprisingly. I mean, if I had someone constantly pointing out how ignorant I was I may want them "filtered out"(censored), too. All one has to do is to look around at any thirdworld country which the U.S. has supported and you can see exactly how Sharon's kind of "filtering" process plays itself out.(filter=head blown off) Now, Sharon, I'll allow you to put all of your pathetic attempts behind you and comment on any of the dozen things or so which I've left for you over the past two days, which, as usual, you've ran from. Shall I point them out for you, AGAIN. By the way, you weren't classmates with Mary Kay LeTourneau, were you?KB
==============================...
"Nobody said anything about preventing you from writing."
Oh, so it's okay if we write as long as no one can see it, especially you, right? So, who said anything about us not being able to write? I said you wanted to silence the left. There are many ways you can silence someone. One way is to kill them, the U.S. client state way. Another way is to just make sure their writings aren't seen, the U.S. stste way. This doesn't mean that we can't write freely and say what we want, but that the amount of people who actually have the opportunity to be exposed to the ideas is quite limited. Yes, I can get my ideas published in a local paper, but I doubt it will have anywhere near the affect of being on mainstream media day in and day out for years. Perhaps you would like a lesson in journalism and how these things work?KB
"It's peculiar that the left equates "filtering" (i.e., my choice not to read your ridiculous blather) with "censorship" (the government preventing you from spewing your ridiculous blather)."
Where does the left do this, do you think you see? Once again, Sharon shows her psychic, or is it psychotic, ability to see things which aren't there. I've told her on a dozen occasions that if she doesn't want to read what I write, don't read it. And she's said that she wasn't going to and wasn't going to comment on any of it. In other words, she lied, yet again. Simply because you're unable to control yourself, Sharon, as I guess all of those Republicans were in the link Rob shared yesterday, you want to filter/censor it away, in typical rightwing fashion. I thought conservatives were big on self-control? I thought conservatives were big on taking responsibility? And you have pointed out nor proven a word I've written to be "ridiculous blather". But that's just more of that rightwing scholarship; "If I say it's ridiculous, it's ridiculous. That's all the proof I need." Now, Sharon thinks she's actually has an argument going here with someone regarding censoring and filtering, THIS is what's entertaining. Still trying to avoid the MANY topics I've left for you, Sharon, by running to the ONE thing you think you can make a case for? AHAHAHAHA She runs, she lies, she does, well, what everone like her does.KB
So, why are you showing this to me? This has
nothing to do with what we're talking about.
According to Wikipedia:
Amendment I (the First Amendment) of the United States Constitution is a part of the United States Bill of Rights. Textually, it prevents the U.S. Congress from infringing on six rights. It forbids Congress from:
"Establishing a state religion or preferring a certain religion (the "Establishment Clause")Prohibiting the free exercise of religion"
And the right doesn't blatently boast about it's preference for Christianity? Well, there's one thing you guys have already blown. And if the country moves any further to the right it doesn't take a genius to figure out what will happen to every other religion.KB
"Limiting freedom of speech"
Yes, and thanks to the left, the ones who helped this finally to actually come into existence in the 1960's, there wouldn't be any freedom of speech. I guess before the left began rasing hell and trying to get the Sharons of the world to finally accept this item, all of the people without a voice were just being "filtered", not censored. I love when you guys just hand us the material we need to prove our points and make you look the buffoons. So, YES, on paper there has been freedom of speech for a long time, but in the real world it wasn't practiced. And nice convenient concepts to get around having to actually implement it needed to be devised, hence, we have filters. "All men were created equal" as well, right? I guess all of those folks who were being killed for trying to live up to this one were just "filtered out". That sounds much nicer than killed. It's kind of like Orwell's 'pacification' being used for mass murder. Sharon, Sharon, Sharon, you even failed community college, didn't you?KB
"Limiting freedom of the press"
Again, thanks to the left, and STILL under a constant threat from the right, this one was enacted, though only superficially. The role money plays in the press, the major press anyway, subverts anything which even remotely could be considered unconditionally free. Yes, everyone is free, Rupert Murdoch and me. Just the same. I'm free. He's free. We have equal access to the world. Anyway, here's a little background of those who I'm sure Sharon looks up to:
http://www.spiritone.com/~gdy52150/1930s...
"Limiting the right to assemble peaceably"
I can think of many instances in the U.S.'s disgracful past where the "right to assemble peaceably" was broken up by folks who were probably Sharons relatives. They were called the KKK. And many of them were in the government. Here, let's have a look:
"William Joseph Simmons founded the second Ku Klux Klan in 1915.A second distinct group using the same name was started atop Stone Mountain near Atlanta in 1915 by William J. Simmons. This second group existed as a money-making fraternal organization and fought to maintain the dominance of white Protestants over blacks, as well as Roman Catholics, Jews, Asians, and other immigrants. This group, although preaching racism and known for lynching and other violent activities, operated openly, and had 4 million members at its peak in the 1920s; many politicians at all levels of government were members. Its popularity fell during the Great Depression, and membership fell again during World War II, due to scandals resulting from prominent members' crimes and support of the Nazis."
So, here we have it, Sharon. As late as the 1920's, and I'm sure long after, there were some of the representatives of your great supporters of freedom and democracy, hanging out in the Klan and no doubt "filtering out" those which they didn't like.KB
"Limiting the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances"
Yes, you can petition all day long. You can also stand outside of GM screaming that they're a corrupt corporation which shouldn't be allowed to exist, but it's not going to do much good. They're big enough, and powerful enough, to be able to filter you out.KB
"The First Amendment only explicitly disallows any of the rights from being abridged by Congress."
Yeah, yeah, I know. So, why are you telling me all of this? I'm quit well aware of this as most people, on the left anyway, are aware of it.KB
"Over time, however, the courts held that this extends to the executive and judicial branches. The Supreme Court has held that the Fourteenth Amendment extends the limitations of the First Amendment to actions by the states."
Yeah, so? Do you think you have proved something here with all of your straw cultivation? You have proven nothing. And you really need to reconsider your censorship position whcih has it that if YOU think it should be censored then everybody else does as well. Yes, I'm aware that you didn't say this, overtly anyway. The subtext of your statements is this though. If you don't like my writing then you believe it should be filtered from the blog, hence, from everyone. This equals censorship. If you just want to filter/censor me from your own computer there are probably ways. I mean, there are those filters for parents, right? You know, the ones parents need for the children who can't control themselves and what they watch. I can appreciate that. But you're a grown up, or so YOU thought. You ca control yourself, can't you, Sharon?KB
"Yes, Sharon, we all have taken a law class in community college as well."
"Then you must have been asleep during that class, as so many others."
Yes, I WAS asleep. It was boring and I already knew more than the teacher. I was just there to pick up chicks and offer them the opportunity of enjoying my free speech. And you know what? None of them "filtered" me out, except for the one girl who put her hand over my mouth as I was about to introduce myself and whispered "Don't say anything. Just take me. I'm your slave. Spank me and call me a conservative Republican Protestant *****." So, see, even I am for some forms of censorship, I mean, "filtering".KB
"Get your tuition back and sue them for malpractice."
Why? I aced that class, but not at community college like you did.
Posted by: KB on August 8, 2005 04:21 PM
Help me Rhonda!
Posted by: Black Jack on August 8, 2005 05:19 PM
Black Jack, in a moment of surrender, finally asks for help:
"Help me Rhonda!"
There are plenty of professionals you can see who 'may' be able to help you. Most of them are liberal, of course. I don't know any Rhonda though. Did you want to address any of the number of issues which someone who wasn't seeking help may want to address, or were you just going to whine and cry for Rhonda? You can always try and "filter me out", you know?KB
Posted by: KB on August 8, 2005 05:47 PM
"Uhhhh I think anyone with above a first grade education could probably tell that I made it up to demonstrate a point."
You lied to make YOUR point. Such behavior is despicable, but predictable from people like you.
Posted by: sharon on August 8, 2005 08:13 PM
"Trying to make some distinguishing difference between censoring and filtering is playing with words and is meaningless."
If distinguishing between censoring and filtering is "playing with words and meaningless," then you have just proven your total ignorance for the law.
Face it, you lost the argument because you are ignorant of the difference. Worse than that, you don't care how you abuse the language. It's exactly why every argument you make fails, KB.
"Oh, so it's okay if we write as long as no one can see it, especially you, right?"
Why can't you understand the difference? Censorship is the government telling you you can't write something. If I choose to filter out your comments (which, btw, I read no more than 2 sentences out of every diatribe because it's all anyone needs to get what you attempt to say), that is not censorship. That is CHOICE, something liberals talk a lot about but practice very little of in real life.
Posted by: sharon on August 8, 2005 08:21 PM
Sharon tries to weasel by saying:
"You lied to make YOUR point."
Oh, well, I guess if you say so it MUST be true. I DO hope you plan on pointing out this supposed "lie". Let's see how thorough Sharon is. Nothing so far. Only her whining.KB
"Such behavior is despicable, but predictable from people like you."
Well, I giess that's the proof and evidence I was looking for. Thanks! I'll try to be more careful before I say...uhh...hmmm....uhhh....wh... was it that I lied about, Runner?KB
Just can't stop, can you? You DO know that every time you respond after making the mistake of saying you were never going to again it makes you look even weaker, if that's possible. Anyway, did you want to respond to any of the many points I tried to spoon feed you, Black Jack, and Rich, or did you just want to stick out your tongue and run?KB
"Trying to make some distinguishing difference between censoring and filtering is playing with words and is meaningless."
"If distinguishing between censoring and filtering is "playing with words and meaningless," then you have just proven your total ignorance for the law."
Not at all. I easily demonstrated how the law can say one thing and people get around the law by calling it something else. If YOU knew anything about the law you'd know that many of the laws were written specifically in such ways so that many folks, especially those with money, can get around them. That's primarily the job of a corporate lawyer, isn't it? Anyway, if you do something to remove me you HAVE censored me. Maybe it's legal, maybe it isn't, but you've done it either way. Now, did you want to discuss any of the other more meaningful topics, or did you want to continue with your digression?KB
"Face it, you lost the argument because you are ignorant of the difference.2
I lost no argument. I pointed out why I didn't lose the argument. I gave examples showing how the law can say one thing and in actually that think not be practiced. I showed how you were trying to make an argument where none exists, you cultivation of straw by assigning to me a position which I never took. Well, there are too many things to point out. Now, let's see...What did Sharon do? She said I lied. She copied a few sentences about freedom of the press, etc...Which I pointed out the left helped to actuate. And, well, that's about it. Oh, and she called my behavior despicable, but then again consider the source. That's it! Yes, obviously Sharon "won the argument". It couldn't be more apparent. At least not to anyone who sees a "liberal communist conspiracy" behind every word. Ever tried baking?KB
"Worse than that, you don't care how you abuse the language."
Yes, that really IS one of my top concerns. Given your propensity for lying I hardly believe to be a good judge of someones abuse of language. Now I could understand that you might believe the facts which I consistantly point out as feeling abusive because you're not used to dealing with facts, or much of anything in the real world. Therefore, it makes sense that upon hearing these things you feel pain. Take the link Rob offered yesterday. I doubt you actually looked at it because your aversion to the real world is so great it's sort of like "Why take the chance?", but had you taken the time you would have wittnessed in vivid colors some of the hypocrisy of those you admire. On the other hand, I LIKE the real world. Had it been a similar site showing the depravity of democrats I would have liked it just as much.KB
"It's exactly why every argument you make fails, KB."
Well, once again, Sharon points out with all the refined and indepth analysis that only a conservatine Republican extremist could match. I mean, she said that my arguments fail. What more evidence could one hope for? Were you EVER going to make something resembling a point or an argument?KB
"Oh, so it's okay if we write as long as no one can see it, especially you, right?"
"Why can't you understand the difference? Censorship is the government telling you you can't write something."
Yes. I know.KB
"If I choose to filter out your comments (which, btw, I read no more than 2 sentences out of every diatribe because it's all anyone needs to get what you attempt to say), that is not censorship."
Yes, I know. I never said any different. Actually, I told you NOT to read them. What's really funny though, and only a rightwinger could pull this one off as well, is that you've just admitted that you don't read what I write, but think you know what I'm going to say. More of that rightwing channeling, huh? This is the same dumbass kind of statements the anti-Chomskyites are always making when they're ragging on and on about him, never being anywhere near the truth, and I ask them how much they've read. In about 95% of the cases they haven't read more than " 2 sentences out of every diatribe because it's all anyone needs to get what you(Chomsky) attempt to say". You don't read, you don't know. So shut up until you do. Or, better yet, take your own advice and quit responding. You're not really adding anything anyway.KB
"That is CHOICE, something liberals talk a lot about but practice very little of in real life.2
And being an "ex-liberal" I guess you would know. I guess that why many, of not most, of the aid organizations, social service organizations, and most evey other thing which helps people, are made of of liberals. Sharon, I really didn't know they had internet on Mars where you're writing from. How much is it?KB
Anyway, angry Republican sister, did you want to address any of the dozens of things I've offered above? Shall Imake another list for you like I did the other day to try and help you get started? God, you know it's gotten bad when I have to actually give the opponent points to attack me on. What happened to the good old days when each person made their own arguments? But I guess Sharon won't be able to respond because this was further down than the first two lines.KB
Posted by: KB on August 9, 2005 02:28 AM
"Oh, well, I guess if you say so it MUST be true. I DO hope you plan on pointing out this supposed "lie"."
Now, where to begin? You've called me racist, sexist, a KKK member, you've made stupid statements about my positions on abortion as well as other things, and like all liberals, you lie about the meanings of words because the normal definitions don't fit your agenda.
BTW, if you really want to know about the KKK, why don't you talk to your cousin Robert Byrd? Oh wait, your sheet is still at the dry cleaners.
KB dictionary:
censorship: nobody wants to read what KB writes! whine, whine, whine! If I don't get the exact same treatment as, say the CEO of a corporation, then I'm "censored."
racist: anyone who believes in equality and doesn't use slurs and epithets against their opponents.
sexist: a woman who has the gall to believe that she controls her own life and destiny and doesn't need the liberal plantation any longer.
liberal: someone to the left of KB, which is pretty hard to find.
conservative: anyone to the right of KB
liar: anyone who disagrees with KB or who has rejected the lame opinions of KB
welfare: only money that corporations get through the tax code is welfare. Everything given to people who didn't work for it is "fair."
Posted by: sharon on August 9, 2005 06:22 AM
Sharon almost attempted a response by saying
"Now, where to begin? You've called me racist, sexist, a KKK member, you've made stupid statements about my positions on abortion as well as other things, and like all liberals, you lie about the meanings of words because the normal definitions don't fit your agenda."
Just because you support rascist policies and ideas, as well as the folks who hold them. And when did I even come close to calling you a sexist? You're not intelligent enough to be a sexist. I've never called you a KKK member, though I'm sure you would have been, or are now, baking cookies for their meetings. I've made NO stupid statements about your positions on abortion. And I haven't "lied" about the meaning of words which YOU use to try to fit YOUR agenda, as was easily demonstrated by the filter vs. censor "distintion". Once again, Sharon begins with a bunch of empty accusations, no supporting evidence, but then again, she IS a conservative, or anything else. Just empty opinion.KB
"BTW, if you really want to know about the KKK, why don't you talk to your cousin Robert Byrd?"
Why would you call him MY cousin. Did I ever say anything about liking him? I love when you try to rip on someone you perceive to be liberal, think that that's going to get me somehow, when it has no bearing on my position whatsoever. And I dare say if you want to start comparing which side of the fence has historically been most supportive of the KKK-types, the Nazi-types, and most every other depraved type one can imagine, your side is going to win by a LONG shot. It's so easy to still see in most of your ilks comments. It's barely contained below the surface. And in times of real stress, you know, like when we show you facts which clash with your fantasies and warped belief systems, it becomes MUCH more apparent.KB
"Oh wait, your sheet is still at the dry cleaners."
It's your fault I had to take it there. I told you we should have waited for a few more days, until you were finished. There! Your turn.KB
KB dictionary:
Sharon's dictionary of projections:
"censorship: nobody wants to read what KB writes! whine, whine, whine! If I don't get the exact same treatment as, say the CEO of a corporation, then I'm "censored.""
Who gives a **** or said anything about caring about my writing being read? I said that if someone blocks someone from speaking, it's censorship. Period. I don't give a rats *** if you read what I write or not. But your attempt at saying that therefore I should be "filtered" from anyone else having to read it IS censorship. And your weak-*** attempts at trying to create a difference where no exists isn't much better than your trying to create an issue out of Wounded Knee where nothing existed. Were you having difficulty understanding the words I've written? Given you display of utter misunderstandings regarding the meanings of words and sentences I hardly feel you to be the best, or even close, qualified to make MY dictionary, or anyone's for that matter.KB
"racist: anyone who believes in equality and doesn't use slurs and epithets against their opponents."
Well, I guess you failed on this one big time. And you DON'T believe in equality. You believe in the mythical equality that everyone is born equal. This ISN'T remotely close to equality I'm sorry to have to tell you, and the other 4 year olds who don't know this yet. Your side has NEVER fought for equality. They've fought against it all the way. Against minorities. Against women, which you wouldn't know anything about, against, well, about every group I can think of but one. Guess who they are?KB
"sexist: a woman who has the gall to believe that she controls her own life and destiny and doesn't need the liberal plantation any longer."
It's really odd that most every position you think you're getting me on with your wittlessness is actually supporting my views, as well as saying that you may be a liberal after all. And your projections really are sooooo apparent that you should really have them attended to before you have to have those ugly feet of yours surgically removed from your mouth and butt, again.KB
"liberal: someone to the left of KB, which is pretty hard to find."
On the contrary. What you consider "liberals" to be are for the most part to the right of me. Perhaps you've made just another of your mistakes. There, I helped you out of that one. You owe me a sheet.KB
"conservative: anyone to the right of KB"
No, my position IS conservative.KB
"liar: anyone who disagrees with KB or who has rejected the lame opinions of KB"
This doesn't make them liars, liar. It just means they're wrong. But given your propensity for butchering words "to fit your agenda" I guess you wouldn't see the difference.KB
"welfare: only money that corporations get through the tax code is welfare. Everything given to people who didn't work for it is "fair.""
Most of it, yeah, that's right. And given that the corporate welfare is on orders of magnitude greater than the small dribble which is given to the poor, you know, those lazy people who didn't work for it, one could almost argue that, yes, corporate welfare IS the only welfare. What's funny is that Sharon hasn't a clue as to where her continued propagation of the "lazy welfare recipient" even stems from. She's swallowed the propaganda hook, line, and sinker, as usual.KB
So, what do we have here:
1. Sharon, once again, proving herself unable to control herself and lyinng about not responding to me anymore.
2. Sharon giving nothing but opinion with NO evidence to back anything up, as usual.
3. Sharon thinking she's being witty only to have it backfire and support my position.
4. Sharon, well, basically, not saying much of anything, as usual.
Sharon, given that I have allowed you the priviledge of my company, do you think it at all possible to just, like, answer any, or even one, of the many topics which I've provided. I mean, you're not even giving any opinions for the most part knowing that they'll be crushed immediately, so perhaps a link proving some of them, or at least one, incorrect. You're doing nothing on here. All you're doing is taking up space with your usual meaningless diatribes about, well, nothing of substance. Here, I'll help you. Why don't you make a comment on that link Rob offered yesterday? Nothing to say? What? It's really not that difficult. There are only about 200 other things I've even helped you to challenge by making lists, but you just run, run, run, and run. You're really pathetic and sad. Wanna' talk about the Republic banner of speaking out against wage slavery? Now those were REAL Republicans. You're not even a good fake. You're like the Louis Vuitton bags which have LW on them. I think Sharon loves me because she keeps coming back for more abuse. This IS a sign of a weak woman, you know? SOmeone who needs the strength to be able to extract herself from her dependency on her man, and in this case, a man FAR greater than anything she's ever experienced, I mean, being a conservative and everything.KB
Posted by: KB on August 9, 2005 04:22 PM
"And I haven't "lied" about the meaning of words which YOU use to try to fit YOUR agenda, as was easily demonstrated by the filter vs. censor "distintion"."
Actually, I didn't lie. That you can't accept the "distintion" shows your lack of intelligence. The lie is that you twist the definition of censorship to suit your purpose, then have to parse a simple encyclopedia explanation because, surely, Wikipedia must have some conservative ulterior motive for explaining what the First Amendment means.
Posted by: sharon on August 9, 2005 08:51 PM
Sharon said in a time of desperation:
"Actually, I didn't lie."
Actually, you've lied about numerous things, as I've pointed out on numerous occasions.KB
"That you can't accept the "distintion" shows your lack of intelligence."
What do you mean "can't accept"? Do really thank I can't see the ditinction which you're trying to make? I've pointed out the differences as well as how the distinction, for the most part, is nothing but fluff. I'm quite well aware what the U.S. documents say regarding censorship, as any good leftist is, as they were the ones to push for the law to become realized. I simply said that there's nothing but a semantic difference between you saying that "only the government" can censor, which is actually bnonsense anyway, and what happens in the real world. I pointed out the variations of how this plays itself out as well. I used analogies about "free men" and slaves to show how paper can say one thing, while what's practiced in reality is quite different. Did you miss something? Perhaps you should read more than just my first two sentences, so that you don't keep sticking your foot in your mouth.
*NEWS ALERT*
Sharon-the-conservative-skag was downtown today standing on the corner screaming and yelling about the end of the world, how Christianity will crush Islam, and how she saw Elvis dancing with Big Foot. As she bent over to sit her Boone's Farm down, some folks decided they didn't like what she was saying and threw a canvass over her to "filter" out what she was saying to the world. Fortunately, she wasn't actually "censored" by the government, she was censored by the people, or "filtered" in propagandistic newspeak. When asked if she minded not being able to share her thoughts she replied "Not at all. If I had been censored I would have, but I was just filtered, so it didn't bother me." When asked if it really mattered if was called censored or filtered, or if was done by the government or by the people, who, incidentally, make up the goverment, she scrathched her head, picked her nose, and said "Huh?" She suddenly got angry. So we just put the canvass back over her.KB
"The lie is that you twist the definition of censorship to suit your purpose"
I have twisted nothing. I know the definition of censor, and I know the definition of filtered. And depending on the situation, as I said before, there may be no difference, and usually isn't. If you want to call going away and leaving me alone filter, then that's fine. I have no problem with that definition. If you want to say that I can't write on here because you don't like me bitchslapping your ignorant-*** ideas, and you do something to get rid of me, you HAVE censored me. Period. I don't really give a **** what the legal definition says. If you do it, then you are censoring.KB
"then have to parse a simple encyclopedia explanation because, surely, Wikipedia must have some conservative ulterior motive for explaining what the First Amendment means."
So why are you telling me this again? We've already been through this straw argument. The left brought the First Amendment into reality. Yes? So? What does this have to do with what I'm talking about? You ban me from writing what I want, you censor me from writing what I want. It's quite simple. If you want to play semantics then you should learn how they work. Or better yet, go work for a real journalist like Greg Palast, who I'm sure you hate because he's one of the few 'real' American journalists who doesn't just rent out his services to the state line. There are a couple of other 'real' journalists around, but I'm sure you wouldn't know any of them. Robert Parry is a 'real' journalist. Studs Terkel is/was a 'real' journalist. There are probably a few others. Perhaps you should read their work sometime to see what REAL journalists do.KB
**Sharon's response regarding Palast:
I know him. He's a liar like you! He doesn't tow the party line and lend himself out as a mouthpiece for U.S. propaganda! He's anti-American! He told the truth about the crimes of Jeb and Katherine because he's an angry socialist! He...he...he...he..he...well..... don't really know because I haven't actually read anything of his except for a negative book review on Amazon, but I read some chicken bones, read my horoscope, channeled, did the Runes, danced around church with a snake around my neck speaking in tongues, since I'm not using it for anything else, and called my favorite phychic 1-900-Ima-Dumbass. Who says I'm not thorough? Who says I don't have evidence? Who says I'm not "smart"?(cry, cry)
Can't stop responding, can you? Having difficulty "filtering" yourself? You're obviously having difficulty filtering out your bad ideas.KB
Posted by: KB on August 9, 2005 11:46 PM
"Actually, you've lied about numerous things, as I've pointed out on numerous occasions."
Actually, I've lied about nothing, but since you are a liberal I don't expect you to understand what lying means.
"Can't stop responding, can you? Having difficulty "filtering" yourself?"
You're right. You write such inane things it is difficult not to respond by smacking you. But you need some new material, since it has to be at least 100 posts ago that I pointed out that you couldn't stop responding.
"You're obviously having difficulty filtering out your bad ideas."
If I had some bad ideas I'd have no problem filtering them out. Filtering you out is easy as well. And, btw, I hear your medication works better if you take it regularly. You might actually meet some women who don't think you're creepy, so you don't have to spend so much time posting here.
Posted by: sharon on August 10, 2005 05:05 AM
"What do you mean "can't accept"? Do really thank I can't see the ditinction which you're trying to make?"
Well, you've posted repeatedly, so I have to assume you don't know the difference between censorship and filtering. Maybe you need the remedial course in community college.
"I've pointed out the differences as well as how the distinction, for the most part, is nothing but fluff."
No, they aren't. Try taking it to court and you will find out.
"I'm quite well aware what the U.S. documents say regarding censorship, as any good leftist is, as they were the ones to push for the law to become realized."
If you are aware of it, why don't you shut up and quit looking like a fool?
"I simply said that there's nothing but a semantic difference between you saying that "only the government" can censor, which is actually bnonsense anyway, and what happens in the real world."
Wrong again. It's not a semantic difference. At least, the Founding Fathers didn't think it was. They knew what real censorship was and would laugh at your whining that you don't have the same "influence" as someone else.
Now see? I read more than the first 2 sentences. But then I could see that you resort to your usual infantile tricks.
Posted by: sharon on August 10, 2005 05:11 AM
BTW, as for the "wage slavery" argument (which is ludicrous on its face)...
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/johns...
Posted by: sharon on August 10, 2005 05:44 AM
Sharon said at 5:15 a.m. because she was too distraught over her inability to stop writing and couldn't sleep:
"Actually, you've lied about numerous things, as I've pointed out on numerous occasions."
"Actually, I've lied about nothing, but since you are a liberal I don't expect you to understand what lying means."
And now you're lying about not lying, but since you are a conservative who lied about having used to being a "liberal" I don't expect you to understand what lying means. I mean, most people are aware when they're lying. Sharon actually believes the lies she tells. This is a sign of indoctrination even greater than that which was already obvious. Just remember, Sharon, if you keep repeating that a square is round often enough you will see a circle where one doesn't exist(most of Sharon's perceptions).
"Can't stop responding, can you? Having difficulty "filtering" yourself?"
"You're right."
Yes, I know. And thanks for the help.KB
"You write such inane things it is difficult not to respond by smacking you."
Yes, we know. It's the usual solution for a conservative extremist to resort to violence given they ALWAYS fail in the intellectual realm. I'm not worried. I'm 6'4" and weigh 230 lbs. If you think you, or any other of your rightwing ilk, have enough suicidal tendencies to smack me, then by all means, have a go at it.KB
"But you need some new material, since it has to be at least 100 posts ago that I pointed out that you couldn't stop responding."
On the contrary, this is called keeping track of your lies and making sure you don't forget. Do you actually think that I'm going to forget about any, or even one, of your many lies? NOT! I'm going to point them out as regularly as possible. But thanks for reminding me that it's been a 100 posts now since this particular lie began. 100 posts ago Sharon said she wouldn't respond anymore because she didn't want to lower herself to my level, or some evasion tactic such as this. Now, it's 100 posts later, at least acording to her numbers, and here she is, still going strong at 5:15 in the a.m. I doubt that Sharon's a farmer, and there's really no other reason to be up that early, so I guess it must just be her inability to sleep due to the guilt she feels from lying so much. I mean, if I had lied as much as Sharon I'd probably never sleep again.(snore)KB
"You're obviously having difficulty filtering out your bad ideas."
"If I had some bad ideas I'd have no problem filtering them out."
Well, then shut up and do it. I've pointed out about 3,000 of your bad ideas, and have offered enough material for you to respond to for there to be at least 10,000 more bad ideas, which were sure to come, hence, the primary reason she never responds to any of them. And since you've already proven your self incapable of filtering out your own bad ideas,(like asking Bush to be more aware of his stupid statements and filter them out), I guess I'll have to do it for you, free of charge, for now anyway.KB
"Filtering you out is easy as well."
You seem to be having a BIG DIFFICULTY with it. And besides, who wants to filter me out? And why on earth would they want to when there's so much for them to learn about how your mind doesn't work?KB
"And, btw, I hear your medication works better if you take it regularly."
Unlike you I don't get cramps, regularly. And I hardly think it would make one ounce of difference in the deconstruction of you if a person were on medications, drunk, or even dead.KB
"You might actually meet some women who don't think you're creepy"
Oh, believe me, I do. They're called 'Intelligent Women'. Maybe you have read about them in the "liberal media". They're kind of the opposite of the long-blonde-haired-Ann-Coulter... that you probably look up to, and whose trading cards you collect. Believe me, you really don't need to worry about the women I date. Do I hear a tone of jealousy in your comment? Yes, well, I'm used to that. Now, scat, go away. I have better things to do than to comfort a scorned stalker.KB
"so you don't have to spend so much time posting here."
You really are worried about how much I post here, aren't you. Believe me, I have enough time for both. I'm my own boss. I have lots of free time, I mean, in between the multiple shaggings. So, you really don't need to worry about my personal life too much. I'll let you know if I get desperate some day. That's usually when I resort to having to date girls on the right. You know, wake up at 2 a.m. bored and a little excited. Put on my 'Doesn't Robert Novak have Lovely Eyes' t-shirt, walk into Denny's, pass by the table where the Ann Coulter-looking girls are sitting, several times, in fact, because they probably can't read this many words on one passing, and then wait for them to follow my out to my car, which, incidentally, never has to leave the parking lot before I kick them out. You guys are easy.KB
"Posted by sharon at August 10, 2005 05:05 AM"
Being that it was 5:05 when you wrote this is it safe to assume that you had your laptop at Denny's?KB
"What do you mean "can't accept"? Do really thank I can't see the ditinction which you're trying to make?"
"Well, you've posted repeatedly, so I have to assume you don't know the difference between censorship and filtering."
Yes, I have posted repeatedly. And I have pointed out what the differences are, or aren't, repeatedly. Still haven't managed to get past those first two sentences, huh?KB
"Maybe you need the remedial course in community college."
Sharon, while it probably is good practice for you to try and joust with me, I think your time would be much better spent looking at one of the many links Rob or I have supplied. Once again, did you want to make any comments on all of those morally giant Republicans on the link Rob left? There are about a hundred other things which you could spend your time commenting on while you're getting your free refills at Denny's at 5:05 a.m.KB
"I've pointed out the differences as well as how the distinction, for the most part, is nothing but fluff."
"No, they aren't. Try taking it to court and you will find out."
You've STILL completely missed the point, as usual. Take what to court? There's nothing to take. If I write and the government stops me, or tries to, they've censored me. If I write and you try to stop me, you're trying to censor me. There's a semantic difference. That's all. Either way person A is preventing person B from writing, or being read, or whatever. Period. There is nothing else. You should really look at how words are manipulated a little more carefully, and try and see what is actually said, and what exists in the real world.(The free man example).KB
"I'm quite well aware what the U.S. documents say regarding censorship, as any good leftist is, as they were the ones to push for the law to become realized."
"If you are aware of it, why don't you shut up and quit looking like a fool?"
Shut up about what? Looking like a fool about what? I look like a fool because I point out the elementary fact that if the government stops me or if you stop me from writing that there is no difference other than the semantics of censor and "filter"? Bottom line: Your ilk can't stand ideas which are unlike your own. And you WOULD censor anyone in a split second if you had the power, as is easily demonstrated in many of the countries which the U.S. supports, where you get your head blown off if you say the wrong things.
You guys are basically not all that different. Your weakness is your ideas, so, predictably, you must resort to force.KB
"I simply said that there's nothing but a semantic difference..."
"Wrong again. It's not a semantic difference."
Yes, it IS a semantic difference.KB
"At least, the Founding Fathers didn't think it was."
Yes, the "founding fathers" had lots of ideas about the way things should work, and were wrong about. And you of all people should be well aware of this. YOU, my naive child, weren't allowed to vote, because the founding fathers didn't think you were intellectually evolved enough. Hey, wait, maybe they were more enlightened than I thought. Where was the "All men created equal" taking place? It was on paper. Did it exist in the real world? Not hardly. Same goes for free speech. Same goes for slavery and equality. Same goes for many other issues as well. If I make a law saying that I cannot censor, but then I send some goons out to break your arms, thereby, preventing you of writing, when I get caught can I just say that it wasn't censorship, it was just filtering?KB