Your Government Knows Better than You

flashoverride said:
Uhhh lc... so, I hate to break it to you, but the BBC is most decidedly NOT a private business. 5 minutes and Wikipedia my friend -

"The BBC is established under a Royal Charter[9] and operates under its Agreement with the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport.[10] Its work is funded principally by an annual television licence fee[11] which is charged to all British households, companies, and organisations using any type of equipment to receive or record live television broadcasts.[12] The fee is set by the British Government, agreed by Parliament,[13] and used to fund the BBC's radio, TV, and online services covering the nations and regions of the UK. Since 1 April 2014, it has also funded the BBC World Service (launched in 1932 as the BBC Empire Service), which broadcasts in 28 languages and provides comprehensive TV, radio, and online services in Arabic and Persian."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBC

Also, as for those laws being State and not Federal, perhaps you've heard of incorporation?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_Rights

Amendment I
Guarantee against establishment of religion

Guarantee of free exercise of religion

Guarantee of freedom of speech

Guarantee of freedom of the press

Guarantee of freedom of assembly

Guarantee of the right to petition for redress of grievances

Guarantee of freedom of expressive association

  • This right, though not in the words of the first amendment, was first mentioned in the case NAACP v. Alabama, 357 U.S. 449 (1958)[25] and was at that time applied to the states. See also Roberts v. United States Jaycees, 468 U.S. 609 (1984), where the U.S. Supreme Court held that "implicit in the right to engage in activities protected by the First Amendment" is "a corresponding right to associate with others in pursuit of a wide variety of political, social, economic, educational, religious, and cultural ends."
Click to expand...

Unbelievable.

Hey, I stand corrected about the BBC being a private business. The rest of your stuff doesn't have any impact t all on what I stated. There is nothing over-broad about the Ohio law because as said earlier, it's going to be limited and impacted by precedent long since set in regular cases of liable and harassment. It's the same damn thing via another / or a specific medium.
 
Ur_Mom said:
You should read my other posts. I tend to go beyond the original idea. A lot of "what if's" and what things could lead to. A lot of speculation. But, I still feel it's relevant. If I wanted to pick apart this single bill without any discussion on what it could mean for the future, I'd be a lawyer. I'm not. I'm just a computer dork that likes to think of what things could become.

This bill may not say the things I mentioned, but it's a step in that direction, IMO. Continue to limit speech one bit at a time. Soon, you won't be able to shit *two credits have been deducted from your account*....

Click to expand...


First, let me be clear that I don't specifically mean to pick on you as I'm trying to make a more general point. But I had to respond to someone and you were it.

As for what you wrote, there is a reason we call what you did the slippery slope fallacy. That's because you can turn *anything* into a slippery slope ("Government wants to make health care more affordable? Next they'll be deciding who lives and who dies!", "Government wants child safety locks on guns? Next they'll outlaw everything but NERF!"). It doesn't contribute anything unless it actually applies. If you know nothing about what the bill actually says then you can't possibly be in a position to meaningfully construct a slippery slope starting with the passage of this bill.

All we have to go on is Kyle's opinion about one sentence pulled out of the bill (a sentence, I might add, which describes behavior which legitimately *should* be legislated against, assuming the outlawed behavior was not described over-broad). We have people falling over themselves to blame liberals and "big government types" when the bill itself was sponsored by a Republican!

It is *not* meaningful dialogue if nothing is known about the subject being discussed. Now, I'm not saying you need to get a law degree and go through the bill yourself. If you at least read some expert opinion on the law that would be a start.

Why am I so stuck on this? Because we should strive to not be so easily mislead by a sexy headline or provocative "summary". Note that this includes me! I get angry at myself every time I fall for a story which confirms my preconceived bias which turns out to have been exaggerated or worse.

Last comment is I welcome this lawsuit because I have faith in the judiciary to get to the bottom of whether this law is well written and sufficiently targeted or not. I hardly agree with every ruling, but on balance I think the judicial system does a good job. One only needs to look at the lack of Muslim ban in this country to see that.
 
maddude said:
It really should be, "Hey Kyle, you know you're a dick, right?"

Otherwise, you're just talking about his dick and that's not harassment, it's just the free expression of love.
Click to expand...

Hah, good catch. I'll be more liberal with my apostrophes in the future.
 
Jamison Collins said:
That's because you can turn *anything* into a slippery slope ("Government wants to make health care more affordable? Next they'll be deciding who lives and who dies!", "Government wants child safety locks on guns? Next they'll outlaw everything but NERF!").
Click to expand...


I do want to bring up something regarding this "slippery slope fallacy" explanation. Keep in mind I am not trying to refute your comment.

Sometimes, it's not a fallacy.

For instance, should the Federal Government be allowed to pass a law that says you have to do a background check for personal firearms sales between individuals, even when the sale does not cross state lines.

Such a law would establish that the Federal government can now regulate the sale of personal property that is not interstate, but intrastate. This is one of the reasons that such legislation keeps failing. But should it pass and be upheld upon challenge, or not be challenged, it would indeed become a slippery slope.

Now this is just an example, I am not trying to drag the conversation off topic any farther than it is.
 
lcpiper said:
I do want to bring up something regarding this "slippery slope fallacy" explanation. Keep in mind I am not trying to refute your comment.

Sometimes, it's not a fallacy.

For instance, should the Federal Government be allowed to pass a law that says you have to do a background check for personal firearms sales between individuals, even when the sale does not cross state lines.

Such a law would establish that the Federal government can now regulate the sale of personal property that is not interstate, but intrastate. This is one of the reasons that such legislation keeps failing. But should it pass and be upheld upon challenge, or not be challenged, it would indeed become a slippery slope.

Now this is just an example, I am not trying to drag the conversation off topic any farther than it is.
Click to expand...

You should know that the BBC is a gov organization. I assumed everyone knew that and that's why your comment made no sense at all to me. Otherwise I think we agree far more than we disagree.
 
Snowdensjacket said:
You should know that the BBC is a gov organization. I assumed everyone knew that and that's why your comment made no sense at all to me. Otherwise I think we agree far more than we disagree.
Click to expand...

Thanx, flashoverride set me straight on that earlier and I actually appreciate it. I'm not one of those guys that can't stand being wrong, just sometimes a little slow on the uptake are hard to convince. I just never ever thought that the Brits were that much different than media companies in the US so I just always assumed they were a public outfit. Live and learn right.
 
damn...we got Jamies snowflake panties in a bunch...hahaha...chides us for "leftist " associated comments and then goes all lefty with his "One only needs to look at the lack of Muslim ban in this country to see that." babble...when in fact a Muslim ban was never asked for

again it must be iterated....we have enough youth...how about a fountain of smart
 
c_porter said:
It's a jab at Republicans that pretend to be for smaller government...until they're in charge.

There is absolutely nothing stopping the Republicans from enacting major reforms that shrink government. Instead, they can't even bring themselves to get rid of the piece of legislation they've called out by name for years, the AG wants to expand the drug war, and they're scared of a "government shutdown" which only really shuts down relatively useless expenditures they claim they want to get rid of in the first place.

It would be one thing if Trump vetoed stuff since he's always been a big gov guy, but it's not even getting to his desk and Dems have almost no power in government at the state or federal level so you can't blame leftists for it.
Click to expand...

hahaha...this alone "There is absolutely nothing stopping the Republicans from enacting major reforms that shrink government: is enough to render your comment foolish and ridiculous......and it shouldn't have to be explained to you how the Congress votes on things and how easy it is for the other side to stifle , filibuster and lie about any legislation that is brought to vote...oh well , you can find that information on the world wide web
 
Killahurtz said:
snowflake panties in a bunch...hahaha...chides us for "leftist " associated comments and
Click to expand...

Actually, I initially assumed that this law had been put forth by a Democrat on the basis of the provided editor summary. It was only after I (minimally) looked into it that I discovered it was a Republican who introduced the bill. And yeah, I stand behind my comments that guys ought to feel a t least a little embarrassed for having not even looked at the linked article before making such confident proclamations.

then goes all lefty with his "One only needs to look at the lack of Muslim ban in this country to see that." babble...when in fact a Muslim ban was never asked for
Click to expand...

If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck (and is called a duck by politicians who introduced it) then it's probably a duck. Really don't want to get into this since it's been settled by the courts twice now unless you sincerely are not aware of the strong evidence pointing to motivation for the Muslim ban.

hahaha...this alone "There is absolutely nothing stopping the Republicans from enacting major reforms that shrink government: is enough to render your comment foolish and ridiculous......and it shouldn't have to be explained to you how the Congress votes on things and how easy it is for the other side to stifle , filibuster and lie about any legislation that is brought to vote...oh well , you can find that information on the world wide web
Click to expand...

Amazing how when the Democrats last controlled both houses of Congress we got the ACA, a massive piece of legislation targeted a number of entrenched interests. Now that the Republicans control both houses it's just too hard to even attempt something similar (in magnitude. Doesn't have to be about health care rationing). The day after or day of passage of the Republicare the Senate indicated it was DOA so that doesn't count.

Give me a break.
 
Last edited:
Killahurtz said:
hahaha...this alone "There is absolutely nothing stopping the Republicans from enacting major reforms that shrink government: is enough to render your comment foolish and ridiculous......and it shouldn't have to be explained to you how the Congress votes on things and how easy it is for the other side to stifle , filibuster and lie about any legislation that is brought to vote...oh well , you can find that information on the world wide web
Click to expand...
Republicans can (and should) use the nuclear option to remove filibuster issues. They refuse, and McConnell is an idiot for doing so. Oh look, a Republican is the one stopping Republicans.

Dems can't "stifle" votes, that's ridiculous.

Of course they lie. Congressional Dems are the skeeziest slime on the planet. Who cares? Are you saying Republican congressman are so stupid that the Dems can just tell them lies and those poor, helpless Republicans get tricked into voting the other way?

You've offered no defense of your argument (and I use the term quite loosely) other than "go read the internets lol". I think you're out of your league here.
 
ummm...porter...I think you reinforced my argument...I am not sure you know what "league" you are referring to...nice try though , but "a swing and a miss"
 
Killahurtz said:
and what big government programs and spending would you and your leftist ilk let the "small government people" get rid of ?...that's right....NONE...so your retort is so much fart gas...but quite typical

we have enough youth...how about a fountain of smart
Click to expand...

Wow, bravo you can jump to conclusions. How does asking a question make me part of the left? Maybe my point is that it doesn't matter which party is in charge they BOTH want big government. At least the liberal party isn't lying to you about it. Not that they won't lie to you about plenty of other things and since you asked so kindly my actually stance is that both parties are corrupt and worthless. In case anyone is keeping score.
 
Chuklr said:
I wouldn't place the State of Texas in the classification of "ultra-liberals", but I might be wrong. Kyle is a damned good overclocker and liberally shares his views ... Damn! I think you nailed! :D

You've never noticed that it doesn't matter which political group or spectrum is in power that each has an agenda that results in the passage of innocuous legislation that proves: 1. They are in Power, 2. They are exercising that power, and 3. the only folks that get exercised over it is the group that thinks it's ox is being gored? :D
Click to expand...
c_porter said:
It's a jab at Republicans that pretend to be for smaller government...until they're in charge.

There is absolutely nothing stopping the Republicans from enacting major reforms that shrink government. Instead, they can't even bring themselves to get rid of the piece of legislation they've called out by name for years, the AG wants to expand the drug war, and they're scared of a "government shutdown" which only really shuts down relatively useless expenditures they claim they want to get rid of in the first place.

It would be one thing if Trump vetoed stuff since he's always been a big gov guy, but it's not even getting to his desk and Dems have almost no power in government at the state or federal level so you can't blame leftists for it.
Click to expand...

The Donor class to both political parties are ardent Progressives. So where it really counts, we get the same result. Trump may not very conservative, but he meant to act on it which is why the NeverTrumpers dislike him.
 
lcpiper said:
I do want to bring up something regarding this "slippery slope fallacy" explanation. Keep in mind I am not trying to refute your comment.

Sometimes, it's not a fallacy.

For instance, should the Federal Government be allowed to pass a law that says you have to do a background check for personal firearms sales between individuals, even when the sale does not cross state lines.

Such a law would establish that the Federal government can now regulate the sale of personal property that is not interstate, but intrastate. This is one of the reasons that such legislation keeps failing. But should it pass and be upheld upon challenge, or not be challenged, it would indeed become a slippery slope.

Now this is just an example, I am not trying to drag the conversation off topic any farther than it is.
Click to expand...
Indeed, the slope very often is slippery—especially when speaking of government, which has a proven record of unrestrained growth and overreach.
 
Smashing Young Man said:
Indeed, the slope very often is slippery—especially when speaking of government, which has a proven record of unrestrained growth and overreach.
Click to expand...

Well as long as people keep asking more of it, it's must grow.

Example, businesses want to use drones for delivery purposes, someone has to monitor their use and people don't really want the skies over their homes being crossed by god knows who's little fliers with eyes and ears and whatever they have. So they want government to put controls on this.

Well it's not going to be free, this is a new requirement and needs educated people to develop rules, monitor compliance, and deal with both the population and the business side of the issue.

It's never going to be done for free and with anything new, the left and right boundaries have to be developed and assessed against the laws and the constitution, more lawyers. And until things settle down there is bound to be a fight over things and your overreach is a certainty until the policies are correctly established. And then things are always going to change so the whole endeavor must be evolutionary in practice.

It's just the nature of the beast.
 
ummm...no...the overreach is never "evolutionary" and it is never scaled back whether the "policies are correctly established" or not...

it's just the nature of the beast
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top