Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
ucodegen
ParticipantIt is another example of creeping PC, or you could say ‘mind-thought-control’.
Vulgar words are considered protected speech under first amendment by Supreme Court.
Offensive speech is also considered protected speech under first amendment by Supreme Court(but to a more limited extent)Inciting speech isn’t considered protected speech.
From what I got from reading up on it was that the poster who got ‘outed’ and later resigned was responding to a post on a news-person’s personal blog post about ‘weirdest things you ever ate’. The poster responded on the blog with a post related to ‘furry felines’. The news-person responded by tracking the IP addr and contacting the school that was associated with the IP address, resulting in the poster resigning (probably under coercion). The post probably was juvenile and in poor taste, but not equivalent to a person losing their job.
I find it disturbing how members of the press often lean heavily on the First Amendment for their postings, but are willing to violate the First Amendment and its concepts if they themselves don’t like the speech in question. (Could call it coercively enforced compliance with the mainstream medias concepts and ideas).
ParticipantIt is another example of creeping PC, or you could say ‘mind-thought-control’.
Vulgar words are considered protected speech under first amendment by Supreme Court.
Offensive speech is also considered protected speech under first amendment by Supreme Court(but to a more limited extent)Inciting speech isn’t considered protected speech.
From what I got from reading up on it was that the poster who got ‘outed’ and later resigned was responding to a post on a news-person’s personal blog post about ‘weirdest things you ever ate’. The poster responded on the blog with a post related to ‘furry felines’. The news-person responded by tracking the IP addr and contacting the school that was associated with the IP address, resulting in the poster resigning (probably under coercion). The post probably was juvenile and in poor taste, but not equivalent to a person losing their job.
I find it disturbing how members of the press often lean heavily on the First Amendment for their postings, but are willing to violate the First Amendment and its concepts if they themselves don’t like the speech in question. (Could call it coercively enforced compliance with the mainstream medias concepts and ideas).
ParticipantSorry even the right wing websites refer to his kissing Bandar
I guess you can’t even see the diff between the two images when they are in front of you. Normal Arab greeting of ‘friends’ is the kiss on the cheeks.. oddly much like the Mafia kiss of death.. What is shown on this site:
is much different.
What Bush couldn’t run the government run media?
You have the sequence out of order.
Control the media -> control the minds of the populace -> control the populace -> control the vote and therefore the country. It doesn’t work the other way around except in dictatorships..ParticipantSorry even the right wing websites refer to his kissing Bandar
I guess you can’t even see the diff between the two images when they are in front of you. Normal Arab greeting of ‘friends’ is the kiss on the cheeks.. oddly much like the Mafia kiss of death.. What is shown on this site:
is much different.
What Bush couldn’t run the government run media?
You have the sequence out of order.
Control the media -> control the minds of the populace -> control the populace -> control the vote and therefore the country. It doesn’t work the other way around except in dictatorships..ParticipantSorry even the right wing websites refer to his kissing Bandar
I guess you can’t even see the diff between the two images when they are in front of you. Normal Arab greeting of ‘friends’ is the kiss on the cheeks.. oddly much like the Mafia kiss of death.. What is shown on this site:
is much different.
What Bush couldn’t run the government run media?
You have the sequence out of order.
Control the media -> control the minds of the populace -> control the populace -> control the vote and therefore the country. It doesn’t work the other way around except in dictatorships..ParticipantSorry even the right wing websites refer to his kissing Bandar
I guess you can’t even see the diff between the two images when they are in front of you. Normal Arab greeting of ‘friends’ is the kiss on the cheeks.. oddly much like the Mafia kiss of death.. What is shown on this site:
is much different.
What Bush couldn’t run the government run media?
You have the sequence out of order.
Control the media -> control the minds of the populace -> control the populace -> control the vote and therefore the country. It doesn’t work the other way around except in dictatorships..ParticipantSorry even the right wing websites refer to his kissing Bandar
I guess you can’t even see the diff between the two images when they are in front of you. Normal Arab greeting of ‘friends’ is the kiss on the cheeks.. oddly much like the Mafia kiss of death.. What is shown on this site:
is much different.
What Bush couldn’t run the government run media?
You have the sequence out of order.
Control the media -> control the minds of the populace -> control the populace -> control the vote and therefore the country. It doesn’t work the other way around except in dictatorships..ParticipantFollow the trajectory, UCO
It’s been unhindered since reagan. It’s just going parabolic, now.
Thats exactly what I was doing.. and going parabolic correlates to the geometric relationship.. which is very scary.
ParticipantFollow the trajectory, UCO
It’s been unhindered since reagan. It’s just going parabolic, now.
Thats exactly what I was doing.. and going parabolic correlates to the geometric relationship.. which is very scary.
ParticipantFollow the trajectory, UCO
It’s been unhindered since reagan. It’s just going parabolic, now.
Thats exactly what I was doing.. and going parabolic correlates to the geometric relationship.. which is very scary.
ParticipantFollow the trajectory, UCO
It’s been unhindered since reagan. It’s just going parabolic, now.
Thats exactly what I was doing.. and going parabolic correlates to the geometric relationship.. which is very scary.
ParticipantFollow the trajectory, UCO
It’s been unhindered since reagan. It’s just going parabolic, now.
Thats exactly what I was doing.. and going parabolic correlates to the geometric relationship.. which is very scary.
ParticipantPutting in Jan 21, 2009 and Nov 12, 2009 as the date range we get:
10.625 trillion and 11.987 trillion, respectively – a 12.8% increase in the national debt.
…
Putting in the Bush era – Jan 21, 2001 to Jan 20, 2009, however, we get:5.728 trillion and 10.627 trillion, respectively — an 85.5% increase (that is, a near doubling) of the national debt.
Make sure you are using equal timespans. You are comparing less than a year (9months) to an 8 year time span.. If we continue at the current rate over the length of time Bush was president, national debt will increase by ((8 * 12)/ 9) * (12.8/100) = 136.5%… unless the relation is geometric which means (e^((ln 1.128)/9))^(8*12) = 261.4% or a multiple of 3.614x of what Bush left it at.
ParticipantPutting in Jan 21, 2009 and Nov 12, 2009 as the date range we get:
10.625 trillion and 11.987 trillion, respectively – a 12.8% increase in the national debt.
…
Putting in the Bush era – Jan 21, 2001 to Jan 20, 2009, however, we get:5.728 trillion and 10.627 trillion, respectively — an 85.5% increase (that is, a near doubling) of the national debt.
Make sure you are using equal timespans. You are comparing less than a year (9months) to an 8 year time span.. If we continue at the current rate over the length of time Bush was president, national debt will increase by ((8 * 12)/ 9) * (12.8/100) = 136.5%… unless the relation is geometric which means (e^((ln 1.128)/9))^(8*12) = 261.4% or a multiple of 3.614x of what Bush left it at.
-
AuthorPosts
