FROM 2012 INTO 2013 POLITICS THREAD

YankeeFan · Sep 21, 2012

Re: THE 2012 POLITICS THREAD

JRoyal said:

I don't disagree here, but I don't think the government has to "stand up" for this. In fact, I feel strongly that there's nothing wrong with the government or its officials condemning the film as being in bad taste and offensive.

The government shouldn't squelch it, though; like I said, I think this should be protected by the First Amendment even if it is vile. But I don't see anything horrible about the government asking Google to review it in regards to YouTube's policies. I don't see asking a company to look at it as the government squelching it. When federal agents are at Google headquarters, then I think there's an issue. Was there pressure applied to Google beyond asking them to review it?
Click to expand...

So, what speech should the government comment on? Should we set up an agency to review all films? Art? Books? Newspaper editorials?

Do we only comment on films if people riot as a result of them?

Why don't we comment on the Book of Mormon, the Master, the Scientology episode of South Park?

JRoyal · Sep 21, 2012

Re: THE 2012 POLITICS THREAD

Stoney said:

JRoyal said:

I don't have a problem with the government asking Google to review the video because they felt it violated Google's terms of service. I would have a problem if the government pushed the issue more and tried to force it to be taken down. Asking for it to be taken down as a means of trying to protect people in harm's way isn't bad to me; I mean, you're just asking. Forcing it would be censorship, and in this case I don't see it as something that violates the First Amendment. But what's wrong with asking Google to review it? Or was there more to it? I read the story but can't remember.
Click to expand...

True, in a literal sense, it's no First Amendment violation if it's merely a request and not an order. BUT, let's be honest, a request coming from the top of the U.S. Federal Govt has a far more coercive feel than a request from any other source. "Oh, so you won't do as we ask? Hmm, hope the IRS doesn't take too close a look at your taxes this year, hope the AG's Antitrust Division doesn't get a little more curious about you, etc."

Not sure the Fed Govt should be in the business of advising private entities on what kind of free expression they should be allowing, even if merely in request form, considering the power it has to fuck with nearly anyone's private life should it feel inclined. That's a slippery slope and fine line where mere request starts to feel like veiled compulsion.
Click to expand...

I can see that. I'm not really sure where I stand totally. I can see an argument that the government should act, within the law, to try to protect soldiers and others serving their country abroad. Making a request like this can fall in that realm. But I can see where it can easily cross a line.

JRoyal · Sep 21, 2012

Re: THE 2012 POLITICS THREAD

YankeeFan said:

JRoyal said:

I don't disagree here, but I don't think the government has to "stand up" for this. In fact, I feel strongly that there's nothing wrong with the government or its officials condemning the film as being in bad taste and offensive.

The government shouldn't squelch it, though; like I said, I think this should be protected by the First Amendment even if it is vile. But I don't see anything horrible about the government asking Google to review it in regards to YouTube's policies. I don't see asking a company to look at it as the government squelching it. When federal agents are at Google headquarters, then I think there's an issue. Was there pressure applied to Google beyond asking them to review it?
Click to expand...

So, what speech should the government comment on? Should we set up an agency to review all films? Art? Books? Newspaper editorials?

Do we only comment on films if people riot as a result of them?

Why don't we comment on the Book of Mormon, the Master, the Scientology episode of South Park?
Click to expand...

Slippery slope arguments are no arguments at all. Suggesting that the government comment on something that makes world news and puts U.S. lives at risk doesn't lead to anything other than suggesting the government comment on things that put U.S. lives at risk.

Mark2010 · Sep 21, 2012

Re: THE 2012 POLITICS THREAD

I just do not see any way that Mitt Romney can win the presidency. Sure, he will win around 20 states because some places are going to vote Republican no matter who the candidate is. (Same true in other places for Democrats.)

But more than a year into his campaign, it's still hard to define what Romney stands for. His position on too many issues is too vague. Add to that the fact so many people can't relate to him on a personal level.

Frankly, I'm really surprised the Republicans didn't select a different candidate. When asked what people liked about Romney the leading answer seemed to be "He's better than Obama". True, Rick Santorum or Newt Gingrich or Rick Perry or Herman Cain would have gotten beaten even more decisively. But Romney can't seem to offer anything voters can latch onto.

Alma · Sep 21, 2012

Re: THE 2012 POLITICS THREAD

YankeeFan said:

JRoyal said:

I don't disagree here, but I don't think the government has to "stand up" for this. In fact, I feel strongly that there's nothing wrong with the government or its officials condemning the film as being in bad taste and offensive.

The government shouldn't squelch it, though; like I said, I think this should be protected by the First Amendment even if it is vile. But I don't see anything horrible about the government asking Google to review it in regards to YouTube's policies. I don't see asking a company to look at it as the government squelching it. When federal agents are at Google headquarters, then I think there's an issue. Was there pressure applied to Google beyond asking them to review it?
Click to expand...

Why don't we comment on the Book of Mormon, the Master, the Scientology episode of South Park?
Click to expand...

We don't we drop bombs in Luxembourg that collaterally kill innocent women and children? Because The Taliban ain't there.

C'mon now. I think we all know the play is here.

Alma · Sep 21, 2012

Re: THE 2012 POLITICS THREAD

Mark2010 said:

I just do not see any way that Mitt Romney can win the presidency.
Click to expand...

I've written this before, no one agrees, and that's OK: An Obama victory is great business the Republican Party.

Mark2010 · Sep 21, 2012

Re: THE 2012 POLITICS THREAD

Alma,

Care to explain?

Azrael · Sep 21, 2012

Re: THE 2012 POLITICS THREAD

Short version:

Governing is hard. Criticizing is easy and lucrative.

Azrael · Sep 21, 2012

Re: THE 2012 POLITICS THREAD

And the question of outrage over who and how and what the US condemns as a matter of 'free speech' seems to have a lot to do with whose ox is being gored.

www.haaretz.com/news/u-s-house-backs-resolution-to-condemn-goldstone-gaza-report-1.4853

www.laht.com/article.asp?ArticleId=326964&CategoryId=10717

Norrin Radd · Sep 21, 2012

Re: THE 2012 POLITICS THREAD

Pretty tame so far.

Just wait until that motherf#$%er Starman and that Nancy Boy old_tony show up.

;D

Azrael said:

Short version:

Governing is hard. Criticizing is easy and lucrative.
Click to expand...

Substitute "coaching", "playing (sports)", "acting", "Playing music", "teaching," "lawyering", etc. in for "governing," and it still rings just as true.

Baron Scicluna · Sep 21, 2012

Re: THE 2012 POLITICS THREAD

Alma said:

Mark2010 said:

I just do not see any way that Mitt Romney can win the presidency.
Click to expand...

I've written this before, no one agrees, and that's OK: An Obama victory is great business the Republican Party.
Click to expand...

Not the Republican party itself. The Republican mouthpieces, talking heads, and Fox News? Sure.

Azrael · Sep 21, 2012

Re: THE 2012 POLITICS THREAD

Baron Scicluna said:

Alma said:

Mark2010 said:

I just do not see any way that Mitt Romney can win the presidency.
Click to expand...

I've written this before, no one agrees, and that's OK: An Obama victory is great business the Republican Party.
Click to expand...

Not the Republican party itself. The Republican mouthpieces, talking heads, and Fox News? Sure.
Click to expand...

I think it's pretty huge business for the RNC, as well.

Easier to frighten people and raise lots of money when the opposition has its hand on the throttle.

Log in or Sign up

FROM 2012 INTO 2013 POLITICS THREAD

YankeeFan Well-Known Member

JRoyal Well-Known Member

JRoyal Well-Known Member

Mark2010 Active Member

Alma Well-Known Member

Alma Well-Known Member

Mark2010 Active Member

Azrael Well-Known Member

Azrael Well-Known Member

Norrin Radd New Member

Baron Scicluna Well-Known Member

Azrael Well-Known Member

Share This Page

Log in or Sign up

FROM 2012 INTO 2013 POLITICS THREAD

YankeeFan Well-Known Member

JRoyal Well-Known Member

JRoyal Well-Known Member

Mark2010 Active Member

Alma Well-Known Member

Alma Well-Known Member

Mark2010 Active Member

Azrael Well-Known Member

Azrael Well-Known Member

Norrin Radd New Member

Baron Scicluna Well-Known Member

Azrael Well-Known Member

Share This Page

Useful Searches