Tag Archives: controlling speech

The Democrats need a Crisis!

There are number of measures important to Socialists languishing in Congress as I tap this out.

First being “Net Neutrality” regulation… AKA Control over the Internet Act.
Second being “Amnesty” funding… AKA Democrat Party Preservation Edict.
Third being “Obama Care” penalties… AKA We Need More Time plea.

A Major Crisis, in the words of Rahm Emmanuel, ‘should not go to waste’.

A singular attack by Those That Must Not Be Named would be put to use by this Administration to sail all the above efforts through Congress.

Could that be the reason there appears to be no coherent attempt to address the horror’s being committed by Those That Must Not Be Named?

Is it so difficult to believe that The Left is desirous of the same kind of National Temperament that brought us the one of the single most Liberty Destroying peices of Legislation in our Lifetimes known as The Patriot Act?

It’s not difficult if you employ History as your guide…

Sad.  But Not Difficult.


4 out of 5 Socialists Recommend Controlling Speech

In a Recent unscientific Survey 4 out of 5 Socialists said they believe Offensive Speech should be Controlled.

Rather than stand on Principle and cast Sunshine on supposedly ‘deadly’ speech expressed in newspapers, television and the internet thus allowing All if Us to condemn it…  Our Government prefers to sidestep that argument and ask for Increased Control of all methods of expression.

Why?

Because controlling Speech is an important weapon employed by those in power to remain in power.

Think about it this way; If you’re doing things people hate you for, what better way to avoid their anger than to make sure they never know about it… and if they do find out, you can tell them whatever you want while making sure nobody can challenge your hogwash.  If anyone tries to shed light on your crappy behavior anyway… send some Force their way.

Brilliant!

Of course you need to convince enough people these controls ‘are for their own good’ or, in pure Irony, ‘to safeguard Free Speech’.  Those that support you, for whatever unimaginable reason, will nod in agreement.  They might even grab a Starbucks, Stop Bathing, Misspell a Sign and Sit in a Park.  Get enough Useful Types like these and you’ve inoculated yourself against all those who recognize the danger you represent.  Machiavelli would be Proud.

We are seeing this play out right in front of us.

New Controls are being created for the Internet.  Last time I checked the Internet has done pretty well without them…

It Keeps getting Faster…  It Keeps getting Better… all by Private Means.

But it represents all that Socialists believe is Evil.

Free Speech.

And that cannot be tolerated.

If you can’t make fun of someone’s Faith, what Can you make fun of?

And since Socialism/Populism/Liberalism often serves as Religion for Atheists… it’s not even a jump, leap or reach.

By the way, the Fifth Socialist who didn’t Approve of Controlling Speech is having his Mind made Right by the other 4 as I type this out.


Tolerance

Definition of Tolerance (n)

Bing Dictionary
  • tol·er·ance
  • [ tóllərənss ]
  1. acceptance of different views: the acceptance of the differing views of other people, e.g. in religious or political matters, and fairness toward the people who hold these different views
  2. tolerating of somebody or something: the act of putting up with somebody or something irritating or otherwise unpleasant
  3. ability to endure hardship: the ability to put up with harsh or difficult conditions

I’ve held back jumping on the Duck Dynasty hates Gays bandwagon… because it’s nothing new and I don’t really care.

Until now.

Let me state my position on this latest example of Liberal Tolerance.

Phil Robertson has every right to openly state what he believes.  A&E has every right as a private company to “Fire” Phil Robertson because of what he openly states as his beliefs.  You have every right to Support Phil, or Support A&E.  You can turn A&E off… you can say mean things about Phil.  You can burn Phil’s Duck Calls… On and on and on.

The only, only, only aspect of this I find remotely interesting is the idea of Tolerance.  This episode is simply another, in a long line, of incidents where Liberals fail to tolerate speech they disagree with.  Phil may very well be an A-Hole.  But where exactly is the tolerance?

Liberals find it very important to remind the rest of us that they are the most Tolerant people in the room… at all times.  But if you only tolerate those you agree with then where exactly IS the tolerance?

This is a terrific example of the Left’s War on Words.

It is all part of controlling speech.  Because if you control speech you control the argument.

But what is amazing is that we are conditioned with regularity to accept such control.

We see this in everyday life.  Several examples we have grown to except, erroneously, are the words;

Gratuity, Charity and Voluntary.

Definition of Gratuity (n)

Bing Dictionary
  • gra·tu·i·ty
  • [ grə t ətee ]
  1. money given in appreciation: a small gift, usually of money, given to somebody such as a waiter as thanks for service given
Synonyms: tip · perquisite · perk · token · donation
If the definition of gratuity above is correct… then how can one be mandatory on parties of 6 or more, or have a minimum of 15% etc.?  Once it’s mandatory or has a requirement, it’s no longer a gratuity, it’s a fee.

Definition of Charity (n)

Bing Dictionary
  • char·i·ty
  • [ chárrətee ]
  1. organization providing charity: an organization that collects money and other voluntary contributions of help for people in need
  2. provision of help: the voluntary provision of money, materials, or help to people in need
  3. material help: money, materials, or help voluntarily given to people in need
Synonyms: aid · contributions · gifts · donations · help · assistance · offerings · handouts
If something is taken from you and given to someone else it is not charity.  It is theft.

Definition of Voluntary (adj)

Bing Dictionary
  • vol·un·tar·y
  • [ vóllən tèrree ]
  1. of free will: arising, acting, or resulting from somebody’s own choice or decision rather than because of external pressure or force
  2. without pay: performing, working, or done without financial reward
  3. using volunteers: composed of, functioning with or requiring volunteers

If something is voluntary it does not require Force by others.  In other words, you don’t voluntarily pay your taxes.  You pay your txes because you must.  If you don’t, you go to jail.  That’s Force.

Apparently “Tolerance” is going the way of “Voluntarily”, a word hardly heard and rarely understood.

It seems none of us ‘Public School Kids’ know what Free Will is.

I shouldn’t have to say this, but Words mean Things.  All of the above words have to do with your ability to say “No.”  So ask yourself, why would the Left want to change the meaning of, or remove, such words from our vocabulary?  Contrary to many people’s new definition of Tolerance, it does not mean finding only those things you agree with as protected speech.  In fact, it means exactly the opposite.

Buy a dictionary… use it… before all meaning is lost forever.


Who are you to Judge?

As long as I’m not into my fifth beer…

The “Who are you to judge?” comment is one of those that can potentially send me over the edge.  It is so inane that there is hardly a way to respond to the wasted space that allowed it to escape the hole in their face.

Humans are made up of thousands of judgements every day.  I might offer millions.  We begin each day judging everything from when to get up to how long our shower will be.  This goes on right up until we lay our fat heads down on our puffy white pillows we chose to have on our beds we chose to have in our house we chose to buy…. are you with me here?

It is exactly this ability to think in the abstract, to conceptualize, that has kept us atop the food chain.  Think about it, we’re slow, soft and squishy.  It’s really all we got.  So when some fool throws out the “Who are you..” it rings idiotic and the only response is;

I, dummy, am me.  I am made up of judgements that I must make every second in order to survive. I do not need to be eaten by wolves to understand what it feels like and thus be informed enough to recognize it as bad.  I do not need to be a heroin addict in order to understand the kind of destruction it reaps upon families and friends.  I do not need to be a paraplegic in order to recognize the types of difficulties one must encounter because of not being fully ambulatory.  I do not need to walk in anybody elses shoes… or wear their underwear… or sleep with their wife etc.  Not only do I have the ability to make judgements based solely on my observations, I must.  You don’t want me rolling over and asking your wife if I can wear your underwear do you?

This is one of those tactics used by fascists trying to stop discussion they don’t like and/or elevate their position by attempting to lower yours.  The only Free Speech they tolerate is Free Speech they agree with.  Recognizing that Free Speech means All Speech just doesn’t fit their agenda.

If none of us tolerated this type of ridiculous behavior and confronted these clowns every time they made noise it would be both good for them and good for the rest of us as we might have real conversations that lead to solutions.

Instead our better angels suggest we keep quiet… until some of our better angels get to their fifth beer.