Community | January 12, 2011 | 154 comments

Censorship is an absurd answer

source: http://opensourceworld.us/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2769:censorship-is-an...

Image
Itsbatman_Durr

http://opensourceworld.us/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&i...

In the wake of the horrendous shooting rampage in Tucson, why isn't anyone talking about banning "Mein Kampf"? Or "The Communist Manifesto"? Or for that matter, "Alice's Adventures in Wonderland" and "The Phantom Tollbooth"?
After all, unlike Sarah Palin's absurdly infamous Facebook map with crosshairs on congressional districts that some pundits have blamed for the violence, we have some evidence -- suspect Jared Lee Loughner's own words -- that these books were a direct influence on him.
And to listen to partisan ghouls such as Keith Olbermann exploiting this horrific crime, any rhetoric or writing or images that contributed to it must be stopped, and those who don't accept blame and then repent (specifically Palin) must be "dismissed from politics."

Note: It's apparent from evidence found by the authorities and from interviews with the alleged killer's friends and acquaintances that Loughner has fixated on Arizona Rep. Gabrielle Giffords since 2007, long before anyone heard of the "Tea Parties" or, in most cases, Palin. Moreover, his grievance with Giffords appears to be unrelated to any coherent -- or even incoherent -- ideological platform. Rather, it drew on the bilious stew of resentments this young man cultivated as he lost his grip on reality.
Indeed, according to a fascinating interview in Mother Jones with one of Loughner's close friends, this twisted soul was apparently an ardent believer in "lucid dreaming" in which he could control an alternate " 'Matrix'-style" reality.
Something similar seems to be taking hold in more respectable quarters. New York Times columnist Paul Krugman insists he wasn't surprised this happened because he saw it coming, even though the facts in this dimension don't support his premonitions.
But rather than beat up on those who've migrated from the reality-based community, it might be worthwhile to take them at their word.
If these people seriously believe that the Tea Parties and Palin's "lock and load" rhetoric are to blame, then what shall we do about it?
It's hard to find a serious answer to this question. For most of these ideological ambulance chasers, it seems enough to lay the blame at Republican or right-wing feet in an effort to anathematize ideas they don't like.
But that's shortsighted. Misplaced panics like this have a momentum and logic all their own. Already, Rep. Bob Brady (D-Pa.) has drafted legislation to ban the use of symbols (crosshairs on a map, for instance) or language ("lock and load!") that could foster violence. "The rhetoric is just ramped up so negatively, so high, that we have got to shut this down," he told CNN.
That opens the bidding. The question is, where will it end?
If the alleged shooter had been inspired by a movie or TV show -- as any number of murderers have been over the years -- would those blaming the Tea Parties join with social conservatives in blaming Hollywood? Would they celebrate new laws to "shut down" such fare?
Mark David Chapman, who murdered John Lennon, claimed to be in part inspired by "Catcher in the Rye." Should that be banned? Or if not banned, should we "dismiss" from public life anyone who doesn't denounce J.D. Salinger?
When the subject of censorship or the "chilling" of free expression comes up in other contexts, the very idea that books, movies or TV can be blamed for the actions of the criminal or the deranged is met with unbridled scorn. I actually disagree with that. If books can inspire us positively, surely they can inspire us negatively, too. But we understand that we don't blame books for the rare demons who feed on them.
No doubt this will cause eye-rolling among those who simply want to keep the focus on demonizing conservatives and never bother to think ahead about the consequences of their misplaced hysteria. One noble exception is Slate's Jack Shafer, who probably goes farther than I would when he writes, "Any call to cool 'inflammatory' speech is a call to police all speech, and I can't think of anybody in government, politics, business or the press that I would trust with that power."
Meanwhile, many proud liberals, not to mention dedicated journalists, see no problem with fueling a mass panic over our "political discourse." The fact that liberal rhetoric and images are often just as "extreme" is irrelevant. Also irrelevant is any violence that might be linked to such rhetoric. The fact that the shooting suspect's motivations may lay in a reality of his own design? That's irrelevant, too.
These critics' aim is simply to exploit this horror as an opportunity to yell "shut up" at their political opponents.
  1. groups:
    Community,   Culture,   current cult,   Current Cultural Issues,   5 more
  2. tags:
    Censorship,  Loughner
  3.     
    |

154 comments // Censorship is an absurd answer

  • SamuraiDave
    • 0
      SamuraiDave  

    • Could someone point to the ACTUAL censorship that is supposedly proposed and not this BS rambling blog of conjecture and strawman arguments? This Chicken Little screaming the sky is falling is beyond embarrassing. People are arguing over generalized terms and their own halfcocked theories with no real substance. It's like an internet version of the blind men arguing about the elephant

    • 2 years ago
  • Itsbatman_Durr
    • 0
      Itsbatman_Durr  
    • SamuraiDave:

      wow look who learned a new catchphrase 'strawman'

      dude noone is going to waste time trying to explain shit to you when you are renown for close mindedness and general denseness. google is your friend, as is the news. try to get someone to explain the hard bits

    • 2 years ago
  • SamuraiDave
  • Varex_Sythe
  • indecisiveh
  • SamuraiDave
    • 0
      SamuraiDave  
    • indecisiveh:

      this is a desperate attempt to deflect criticism from irresponsible words and images by wrapping up in the 1st Amendment and singing the National Anthem. I addressed before that the bill proposed is about extending the protection the President has to members of Congress.

      This is a very very generalized argument that when one digs deeper finds is all fluff and fantasy.

    • 2 years ago
  • WeAreChangeKy
    • +3
      WeAreChangeKy  

    • In the immortal words of Michael Jackson:

      I'm starting with the man in the mirror....

      If you want to make the world a better place, take a look at yourself and make that change.

      I think we should all start the day by taking a deep look into the mirror and promising to do whatever you can that day to make the world a better place starting with yourself.

    • 2 years ago
  • MotherForTruth
  • fayday9
  • Itsbatman_Durr
  • toastyguy11
    • +2
      toastyguy11  

    • I don't think this can be blamed on any one thing, but I think we can agree that when you have politicians telling everyone that Obama and the democrats are going to take away all your guns, kill your grandma and enslave white people, crazy people are more apt to freak out over that than try and make healthcare affordable for everyone and tax the rich more. A lot of people are really gullible and uninformed, and it's a shame that some politicians take advantage of that

    • 2 years ago
  • Itsbatman_Durr
  • freecrack
    • +2
      freecrack  

    • i read catcher in the rye, just cuz i wanted to see what it was about this book that made so many people crazy.it just wasted some of my life that i can never get back.its just words on pages nothing more.

      and further more, catcher in the rye sucked.maybe thats why people go crazy aftr reading it.

    • 2 years ago
  • toastyguy11
  • Itsbatman_Durr
  • KSirys
  • freecrack
    • 0
      freecrack  
    • Itsbatman_Durr:

      i gotta ask why?
      i really wanted to like it.i mean i bought it and everything for the purpose of evaluating it.i really invested my best into it, and felt like salinger didnt owe me a refund, but the portion of my life i wasted on that book.i felt like i read an entire book of some self involved crybaby bitch lamenting his existance, with absolutely no personal accountability.like it was a profile in arrogant thought.

      that was my take, but i would love to know what you liked about it.i would love to be able to gain that positive view.

    • 2 years ago
  • freecrack
  • 2helenahandbasket
    • +2
      2helenahandbasket  

    • We are guaranteed the right to free speech in this country. If someone says something you don't agree with, or that upsets you, deal with it, it's YOUR problem. There are always going to be nut cases like this shooter. Restricting the speech of all of us will not change this.

    • 2 years ago
  • Itsbatman_Durr
  • ChaseTx
    • +1
      ChaseTx  

    • I think there is a vast difference between censoring art and asking that political figures treat each other respectfully as people. Most of the time when people speak of censoring movies, TV, books, and video games it is due to stylized violence. I think most people realize that these are fictional situations and not a "call to arms" -- if something can be interpreted as a call to arms, it may be wise to consider some restrictions or even banning. But in the case of art for the sake of entertainment, it does not seem permissible to advocate censorship or banning.

      On the other hand, when it comes to politics, a lot of the things that are said everyday can be interpreted as a call to arms. Can I feel safe going to work with an extremist who rambles everyday about his hatred of certain politicians and brags about his guns and going to a shooting range? This type of behavior is threatening, and it is spawned by an environment where people with opposing views are seen only as "the enemy" and dehumanized in favor of a symbol of the persons views, which are then dismissed as "radical." That is how TRUE radicals are made. They follow the example set by political hatred.

      I'm not referring exclusively to one party or another, or blaming specific individuals. I just feel that public figures who have opposing views on certain issues should not demonize each other, but show their respect for one another as people. They should not rail on one another or use language that seems to advocate a physical attack. No one should be named as a "threat" unless it is unarguably proven that their interests lie outside the public's well-being.

    • 2 years ago
  • Itsbatman_Durr
    • +1
      Itsbatman_Durr  
    • ChaseTx:

      where do you draw the line though on who a 'political figure' is? most of the rhetoric isn't coming from elected officials, although a lot is, but from the media. people tend to call rush and sean and bill and glenn 'the right' and keith rachel and jeanine 'the left' but for the most part they are nothing but paid performers, like in the WWE, doing their 'schtick' for ratings. would you silence the media or put restrictions on television and radio personalities?

    • 2 years ago
  • ChaseTx
    • +1
      ChaseTx  
    • Itsbatman_Durr:

      We should be careful of any instance where someone intentionally incites hatred toward politicians or ideologies in a public medium. I don't endorse censorship in any but the most extreme cases, but it seems apparent to me that divisive political propaganda does more damage than any movie or game ever did.

    • 2 years ago
  • ramanan50
  • Itsbatman_Durr
  • PzLuvHappeniz
    • +7
      PzLuvHappeniz  

    • If we really want to censor so much why not just open a ministry of truth that rectifies and changes history along with the censorship of the news. Also we should create a language called newspeak that effectively eliminates our ability to think for ourselves. That may work.

    • 2 years ago
  • hombre76
    • -3
      hombre76  
    • PzLuvHappeniz:

      well if you cant conduct your self like a responsible adult and understand the things you say particularly when you have athority are important then ya maybe we do need to restrict you and treat you like the children you act like.

    • 2 years ago
  • Itsbatman_Durr
  • WeAreChangeKy
    • +1
      WeAreChangeKy  
    • hombre76:

      When you restrict someone you think is childish you also restrict yourself. Then someone thinks your behavior is wrong and they restrict your type and in turn themselves and then it never ends. In the end the only people unrestricted work for the government. Check your history books and tell me if that sounds familiar.

    • 2 years ago
  • hammywill
  • jubal
  • figgdimension
  • figgdimension
  • pjacobs51
  • WeAreChangeKy
    • +2
      WeAreChangeKy  
    • figgdimension:

      Religion had nothing to do with this offense. It seems many on this site are as obsessed with being non-religious as those they claim are religious. Either way it takes over your life and your thinking and makes the truth less clear. Information, including religious must be balanced in order to get the full picture.

    • 2 years ago
  • jubal
    • 0
      jubal  

    • The Communist Manifest does not encourage violence. I haven't read Mein Kampf, so I cannot comment on that.

      Hate speech is a crime an some of the political rhetoric lately is for all intents and purposes...hate speech.

    • 2 years ago
  • Itsbatman_Durr
  • jubal
    • +1
      jubal  
    • Itsbatman_Durr:

      Lovely how you take something out of context to prove your point.
      "Though not in substance, yet in form, the struggle of the proletariat with the bourgeoisie is at first a national struggle. The proletariat of each country must, of course, first of all settle matters with its own bourgeoisie.

      In depicting the most general phases of the development of the proletariat, we traced the more or less veiled civil war, raging within existing society, up to the point where the war breaks out into open revolution, and where the violent overthrow of he bourgeoisie lays the foundation for the sway of the proletariat.

      Hitherto, every form of society has been based, as we have already seen, on the antagonism of oppressing and oppressed classes. But in order to oppress a class, certain conditions must be assured to it under which it can, at least continue its slavish existence. The serf, in the period of serfdom, raised himself to membership in the commune, just as the petty bourgeois, under the yoke of the feudal absolutism, managed to develop into a bourgeois.

      The modern laborer, on the contrary, instead of rising with the progress of industry, sinks deeper and deeper, below the conditions of existence of his own class. He becomes a pauper, and pauperism develops more rapidly than population and wealth. And here it becomes evident that the bourgeoisie is unfit any longer to be the ruling class in society, and to impose its conditions of existence upon society in an over-riding law. It is unfit to rule, because it cannot help letting him sink into such a state that it has to feed him, instead of being fed with him. Society can no longer live under this bourgeoisie, in other words, its existence is no longer compatible with society."

      The war was started by the ruling class and they created the backlash of violence due to the conditions they have created with the exploitation of the worker. The violence you claim is the hallmark of socialism and communism is a flash in the pan...whereas the violence of the ruling class is systemic.

    • 2 years ago
  • Sparky2U
  • Paratus
  • timetide
    • -1
      timetide  
    • Paratus:

      propaganda propaganda propaganda propaganda propaganda propaganda propaganda propaganda propaganda propaganda propaganda propaganda propaganda propaganda propaganda propaganda propaganda propaganda propaganda propaganda propaganda propaganda propaganda propaganda

    • 2 years ago
  • WeAreChangeKy
  • EmperorThan
    • 0
      EmperorThan  
    • Paratus:

      Watching this vid creeps me out. I know a guy who is basically IDENTICAL in thought and what I witnessed this guy become in the last few years to Jared Loughner. Used to be a good friend of mine, then he started smoking meth and became paranoid and saying the government was coming after him. I had to cut off contact with him cus he started threatening me saying I was working with the government to arrest him..... I could DEFINITELY see the dude I know doing something like the Tuscon Shooting.

    • 2 years ago
  • FishaHouse777
    • +2
      FishaHouse777  

    • Millions of people read books, and millions read the catcher in the rye, the communist manifesto, alice in wonderland, main kaumpf, etc., etc. I have read them, do I want to kill anyone or start a revolution? No. And my intuition tells me you are all probably the same way (hopefully). Books don't brainwash people or make them violent and evil, that's something intuitive or already growing inside them. If you let the government ban books they will start to ban movies, documentaries, internet sites, and even clubs.....because can't all of these things lead to the same outcome as BOOKS? Stop being cynical people and begin rationalizing the situtation before you ban something, please.

    • 2 years ago
  • jubal
  • figgdimension
  • ramanan50
  • MotherForTruth
  • littlwarrior
  • hombre76
    • 0
      hombre76  

    • Let me get this straight, because the killer read books available fore nearly a century each we should excuse the rightwing of this country for its "the dems are the enemy and must be stopped at all cost so America does not fall" rhetoric that in all likely hood led to this obvious loon to attack a dem over an anti government gripe? No I think we will press this obvious abuse of the press and publicity that it is and remind all that freedom of speech is not freedom from the consequences of what you say and more importantly what you indorse with that speech.

    • 2 years ago
  • curtisreed
    • +1
      curtisreed  
    • hombre76:

      I am constantly amazed by the depth of ignorance and willful myopia of the left.

      You state that the rightwing has an attitude that "the dems are the enemy", yet do you not recall that it was Obama who, while speaking at a Hispanic Conference before last November's elections, extolled the Latinos to join him to combat their "common enemies"?

      Perhaps you do not know that a Democrat congressman said the governor of Florida should put against a wall and shot?

      Or how about K. Olbermann's comment that the country would be better off if Dick Cheney were assassinated?

      Was it a conservative that created the film depicting a fictional assassination of George Bush? No.

      The "rhetoric" and "hyperbole" is on both sides of the aisle, but I have yet to hear one conservative suggest the assassination or murder of ANY liberal.

      That is something the left does.

    • 2 years ago
  • Proud_Progressive
  • jubal
    • -4
      jubal  
    • hombre76:

      The whole move towards violence in this country, like it or not, is founded on the visceral reaction of right wingers towards Obama being Black and in the White house.

    • 2 years ago
  • figgdimension
  • figgdimension
  • 2helenahandbasket
  • MotherForTruth
  • Itsbatman_Durr
    • +2
      Itsbatman_Durr  
    • jubal:

      wow you have been saying some crazy stuff lately but this takes the cake. that is not only degrading to the people whose tragedy you are using to vent your spleen, but to an entire race that has truly been treated horribly in this country and by trivializing that to make your point you insult them all.

      you should be ashamed, because you certainly know better.

    • 2 years ago
  • Itsbatman_Durr
  • hombre76
    • 0
      hombre76  
    • curtisreed:

      oh you are so right curtis! we liberals should never suggest that we defend ourselves from you and your violent ilk when they say we should be eliminated , call us Rats ....we should just bend over and take that cock right up the ass and say thank you so much Mr christian right conservitive preist .... are we not spreading those cheeks well enough for your cock now curtis?

      Fuck you! you dont want any fight out of your victims then try your fucking mom! I for one and many of my Liberal friends are happy to throw down and finnish what out union forefathers should have eraticated with the civil war....people like you who think your ENTITLED to this country over everyone else and dont want to pitch in your share to help make sure all your fellow americans have what they need , because you and the rest of your conservitive freinds a just a bunch of greedy out for yourselves freeloaders.

    • 2 years ago
  • WeAreChangeKy
    • +2
      WeAreChangeKy  
    • jubal:

      That's BS. I live in the South and it's not like that at all. Blacks in the south dislike Obama more than whites. Change in their pockets is not the change they hoped for.

    • 2 years ago
  • SamuraiDave
    • +1
      SamuraiDave  
    • curtisreed:

      "The "rhetoric" and "hyperbole" is on both sides of the aisle, but I have yet to hear one conservative suggest the assassination or murder of ANY liberal."

      Yeah, curtis, the problem with your statement other than its complete inaccuracy is that it's just plain wrong.

      Take a gander at these rightwing gems where they mention shooting, hanging, and shoving into gas chanbers Liberals and then come back with that BS of "yet to hear one conservative suggest the assassination or murder of ANY liberal." You seem to have a trouble with facts.

      "I tell people don't kill all the liberals. Leave enough so we can have two on every campus -- living fossils -- so we will never forget what these people stood for." -- Rush Limbaugh

      "I would have no problem with [New York Times editor Bill Keller] being sent to the gas chamber." -- Melanie Morgan

      ""[T]he day will come when unpleasant things are going to happen to a bunch of stupid liberals and it's going to be very amusing to watch." -- Lee Rogers

      "And if Al Qaeda comes in here and blows you up, we're not going to do anything about it. We're going to say, look, every other place in America is off limits to you, except San Francisco. You want to blow up the Coit Tower? Go ahead." -- Bill O'Reilly

      "Howard Dean should be arrested and hung for treason or put in a hole until the end of the Iraq war!"-- Michael Reagan

      "Some liberals have become even too crazy for Texas to execute, which is a damn shame. They're always saying -- we're oppressed, we're oppressed so let's do it. Let's oppress them." -- Ann Coulter

      "We need somebody to put rat poisoning in Justice Stevens' creme brulee. ... That's just a joke, for you in the media." -- Ann Coulter

      My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times Building." -- Ann Coulter

      "We need to execute people like John Walker in order to physically intimidate liberals, by making them realize that they can be killed too." -- Ann Coulter

      And Joe Wilson has no right to complain. And I think people like Tim Russert and the others, who gave this guy such a free ride and all the media, they're the ones to be shot, not Karl Rove. -- Rep. Peter King (R)

      Where does George Soros have all his money? Do you know? Do you know where George Soros, the big left-wing loon who's financing all these smear [web]sites, do you know where his money is? Curaçao. Curaçao. They ought to hang this Soros guy. -- Bill O'Reilly

      "Has there ever been a more revealing moment this year?" Mr. Rove asked. "Let me just put this in fairly simple terms: Al Jazeera now broadcasts the words of Senator Durbin to the Mideast, certainly putting our troops in greater danger. No more needs to be said about the motives of liberals." -- Karl Rove

    • 2 years ago
  • MotherForTruth
    • +1
      MotherForTruth  
    • WeAreChangeKy:

      Obama's election was symbolic - Fist Black American president, and the healthcare was passed at any cost also was symbolic as a first black American president passed the healthcare. Public (black and white) was duped.

    • 2 years ago
  • jubal
  • WeAreChangeKy
    • +2
      WeAreChangeKy  
    • jubal:

      Yes, and I'm saying that the media has overblown this idea. I know many people in the south from all types of backgrounds. I know some that are extremely racist among their white peers and make many ethnic jokes. Kentucky, Tennessee, Alabama, Texas all I have spent much time in various parts of those states among all types of people in my work. Racist jokes aside, none, not one of them has told me they hate Obama as President because he is black. Most, if they do dislike him, will vocalize a very reasonable reason due to his political failures, backtracking or flip-flopping on his promises.

      However, I know just as many black people from all walks of life. Many of them have told me that they now hate Obama because he lied to them and has offended the race by behaving just as his predecessors. The lack of difference between him and a white candidate has incensed some blacks to the point that he would be in as much or more danger from a black extremist or otherwise unstable person than any white racist. In addition, his policies have been detrimental to the black population in America.

      Just claiming that white people hate him because he's black doesn't make it so. I have found very little of this, if any. It's an easy claim to make because most don't even question it. However, true white supremacists and black haters are a minute percentage of the population. There are just as many extreme black people that hate white people, either is a very small amount.

    • 2 years ago
  • curtisreed
    • +2
      curtisreed  

    • Wonderful article. Extremely well said.

      I actually envision a clever conservative responding to this insane notion with a tongue-in-cheek proposal that takes it to the extreme in a way that will reveal the idiocy, the insanity, and the danger, in reflexively following this impulse to censor.

      It might go like this:

      In order to restore civility and calm to the nation, we, the concerned members of Congress, hereby propose to create a new governmental agency, the Administration for Safe Speech (ASS for short), whose duty it shall be to police speech and ensure that no one is ever offended by political speech or, conversely, inspired to do harm by it.

      We have initiated this process by creating the ASS Charter, in which we have defined the terms that shall be banned, and the irresponsible use of said language in the future shall resort in a tactical response by the Administration for Safe Speech Enforcement Squad (ASSES):

      Annihilate
      arm, armed
      Battle
      beat
      Blitz
      bomb
      Bull's eye
      bullets
      butcher
      chop down
      clobber
      cut down
      defeat
      destroy
      exterminate
      fight
      gun(s)
      Kill
      knife
      massacre
      musket(s)
      off someone
      pistol
      pitch forks
      poke
      pull the trigger
      rebel
      revolt
      revolution
      revolver
      rub out
      shellac
      shoot
      Slaughter
      stab
      Target
      victory
      War

    • 2 years ago
  • Itsbatman_Durr
  • bailey78
  • cantucwearebrothers
  • Itsbatman_Durr
  • kennymotown
    • +2
      kennymotown  

    • Big difference between Books that have withstood the test of time, and scope gun sights, and Don't retreat, reload! Or even I believe the President is a racist!
      A huge difference, especially when people who admire those people making those inflammatory comments threaten to turn you into the FBI or report you too a state employment division for spending time on the internet. Easily these folks are not dealing with a full deck, just like the shooter! Which one of these types will be the new shooter?

    • 2 years ago
  • Itsbatman_Durr
  • kennymotown
  • Itsbatman_Durr
  • ayipis
  • kennymotown
  • EdJoyProductions
  • kennymotown
  • Itsbatman_Durr
  • curtisreed
    • 0
      curtisreed  
    • kennymotown:

      "Big difference between Books that have withstood the test of time, and scope gun sights, and Don't retreat, reload! Or even I believe the President is a racist!"

      What an absolutely MORONIC concept, Kenny. "Books that have stood the test of time". Those books have only "stood the test of time" because they were not banned in the first place, which could not happen if people (like you) were allowed to express their totalitarian instincts and ban books that they felt were "extreme", "offensive", or "dangerous". Were we to follow your sad advice, any new book, which would otherwise become the NEXT "time tested" Catcher in the Rye, or The Stranger, or Huckleberry Finn, would be banned before it ever had a chance to be read. New music, such as rock and roll, songs such as "Shooting an Arab" (Cure), "I fought the Law" (Melloncamp), not to mention virtually every "gansta rap" artist, would be banned.

      How do you "ban" language without a new law enforcement division being created to police that?

      And let's all be perfectly honest: YOU, kennymotown, judging by MANY of your comments on this site, would be one of the first to be investigated, censured, and possibly arrested, for your "extremist" comments.

      Next, martial references are a rhetorical device that have been used for thousands of years because their meaning is instantly recognizable. They do NOT imply however that violence should be used.

      We often "shoot down" a bad idea. We constantly "battle" our demons, our politcal opponents.

      Other idioms include "lock and load", "loaded for bear", "quick on the draw", "sharp shooter", "marksman", "sure shot", "fight to the death", "no holds barred", "take them to the mat", "TKO", "knock out", "knock down", "Blitz", "outflank", "over-run", "divide and conquer", etc. ALL have their roots in combative concepts.

      You tell me, Thought Nazi, what do you propose should be the punishment for daring to use one of the "forbidden" terms?

      I'm sure that the next step will be "re-education". At first this would be handled at the community level, but as the number of inmates exceeds the tens of thousands, we will need re-education camps, set up in the bluest of blue states, let's say--Illinois--where the Unions will be able to fill those camps with union guards, union psychologists, union janitors (we'll have to import labor from Mexico for this, another reason for you to keep the borders open).

      Hell, forget Illinois, let's keep Gitmo open so the left can fill it with "dangerous" pundits and political commentators.

      Wait, let's not stop there. We have to begin to shut down dangerous websites, we need to have "observers" sit on every program at news stations around the country monitoring every script and censoring the content. News and opinion shows will have to be graded for compliance and "balance", "accuracy" will be judged by how closely it sticks to the approved government line, and anyone who dares to violate the established norms will have their license revoked, and face possible jail time.

      But what about "dangerous" speech that happens at home? What about parents who dare to say that "Obama is a racist" to their children, isn't that endangering the well being of the children? Clearly we need an education campaign in the schools; children must be taught that they have a duty to Emperor Obama to report undesirable comments made by their parents, so that their parents "dangerous" and "psychologically damaging" speech can be stopped--for the welfare of the children, mind you.

      Because it is CHILD ABUSE for any parent to hold an opinion that runs counter to that of The Government (unless a republican is in office).

      Kenny, you are a FASCIST.

    • 2 years ago
  • kennymotown
    • 0
      kennymotown  
    • curtisreed:

      You right curtis! An immediate investigation is absolutely required in the case of the big bad kennymotown. Damn the censorship full speed ahead with that censorship of keenymotown!

    • 2 years ago
  • EdJoyProductions
  • curtisreed
  • jubal
    • 0
      jubal  
    • Itsbatman_Durr:

      Easily said, but you fail to acknowledge that the average citizen cannot get their voices heard on corporate controlled media networks that have the highest number of ignorant viewers.

    • 2 years ago
  • figgdimension
  • figgdimension
  • Itsbatman_Durr
  • Itsbatman_Durr
    • +1
      Itsbatman_Durr  
    • figgdimension:

      wrong on both counts. tell me, oh great swahili reader of the cosmic tea leaves, which books of today will 'stand the test of time' and this be worthy of escaping your might banhammer of censorship?

      Would a book by a seemingly right winged writer proposing we solve world hunger by eating the young meet your standards? How about a story critical of the current regime, which suggests the violent overthrow and murder of the nations leader, by a coalition of senators from both sides of the political aisle?

    • 2 years ago
  • WeAreChangeKy
    • +2
      WeAreChangeKy  
    • ayipis:

      Lucid dreams are a subject studied by the US military and CIA for years to be used in mind control and psychic tests. This was one of the subjects studied by the group made famous by the movie "Men Who Stare at Goats". This and other subjects this man was interested in make it even more probable that he was a Manchurian type fall guy.

      In addition, he was being trained for the US military in a special program for those that intellectually otherwise wouldn't qualify. Simple minded people are the easiest targets for use in cults, mercenaries and government Manchurian experiments.

    • 2 years ago
  • Armageddon_Now
  • Itsbatman_Durr
  • ramanan50
  • WeAreChangeKy
  • Proud_Progressive
  • ramanan50
    • 0
      ramanan50  
    • Proud_Progressive:

      Whether we like it or not,'map with cross hairs' is here to stay.
      By shutting it out,which ,to day, is impossible, we may encourage it.
      Correct option would be to treat these degenerates as criminals and do away with, period

    • 2 years ago
  • Itsbatman_Durr
  • curtisreed
    • -2
      curtisreed  
    • Proud_Progressive:

      Yet another moronic comment.

      The maps used by BOTH the Palin campaign AND the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) showed icons that slightly resembled cross hairs over districts that they thought were "winnable" if resources were focused there.

      The PURPOSE of the map was to help get the word out to grassroots activists, so they would donate money to candidates in those districts, go and volunteer to work on phone banks, etc.

      What is "STUPID" is the individual who thinks that a cross-hair that indicates "focus on this area" is a subliminal messages to "kill someone here".

    • 2 years ago
  • Proud_Progressive
  • Proud_Progressive
  • timetide
    • 0
      timetide  
    • curtisreed:

      Proof. everybody who's been sucking off of Fox's teet during their moment of crisis has been claiming that the democrats ahve done the smaething but nobody can produce a single screenshot, pic or soundbite confirming this. If you want to make a claim like that back it up with some proof, not mearly the repitition of an unproven idea until people consider it fact.

    • 2 years ago
12
1 - 100 of 154

top videos