Wasn't wookie supposed to post again?

You can't argue with one liners. You might say something to provoke an argument, but you can't actually participate in one with out actual reasoning.
There's a whole lot more to it than getting the last word in no matter what that last word is. Sure it's good to continue an argument, but each argument should to some degree stand on it's own.

It still doesn't help that I'm usually too lazy to finish any of my arguments. I've noticed that I really start to care less and less what other people think, so long as I'm honestly sure of my position. In the end that's bad for objectivity, but I digress. Mystic, if you have something to say, take the time to say it. Sarcastic one liners are useless to a hostile audience.



Freedom of speech only guarantees public availability of ideas. It does not say that you can say what ever you want when ever you want how ever you want. For example you can have and share an opinions any way you like, but you can't necessarily use a presentation that is hurtful or intrusive to others.




Says who, you? You're just making these standards up as you go.

I extend my challenge for wookie to you. Can you back this up using law, facts, and economy? There are legitimate arguments that agree with you: I'd just like you to start using them so we can debate on equal footing.

Sorry. I'm not feeling nearly as combative tonight. Plus I plugged away at a little more Halo 3 single player.

This website describes speech that is not protected by the first amendment and the Supreme Court cases that made it so. Obi is correct.

arguing politics on the internet is like running for president... even if you win you're still a moron

I think television SHOULD be censored.

Why?

Because it's free and publicly available. Yes, it should be a parent's responsibility to monitor their children's television habits, but it isn't realistic to expect children to constantly be under surveillance.

The way TV is right now is fine. If you want to have a racier show, go to cable or premium channels.

Do you let your kids watch CSI Miami, Vinny? Or fear factor? Cops? 90210? Maury? These are all programs that I wouldn't let my kids watch, and they're on broadcast channels. Just because they don't say "****" doesn't mean they're suitable for children. My kids aren't suddenly not going to be allowed to watch WWF because the wrestlers suddenly are allowed to swear, or the girls are suddenly allowed to go topless. They weren't allowed to watch it in the first place.

And the argument that kids aren't realistically monitored by their parents is irrelevant. A government is not held responsible for the inaction of its citizens. I would rather we had horribly sexed up children that shot eachother than a government that decided what was "too far." Not to mention, children are already violent and sexed up due to lack of parental control.

Right now, "God" in front of "Dammit" is censored. Why?

This is true. But this is what is desired of the citizens. Can you imagine the outcry from parents groups, Christians, if the FCC suddenly vanished? It would seriously be like the End Times for them. Children would grow up to be sadistic, horny, people according to them. And that would mean parents have to actually...raise their child(ren)!

The FCC regulates cable television as well. Despite being a service that must be paid for.

This is one of the worst threads ever.

IT'S GREAT TO HAVE THE APPROVAL OF ROBHOLE!

I guess it's a good thing I'm not a parent. I see no problem with letting kids watch Fear Factor.

Because it's extremely offensive to many people.

So is an unveiled woman

Because people are stupid.

They also have the highest levels of taxation in Europe. That's a probably more of a reason for general prosperity than lax censorship regulations.



Wow. How far will it go for you to accept that government can actually do something without being wholly evil and unreliable? This inherit fear of the very concept of government is getting a little absurd.

I don't fear them. I don't trust them. I do not trust our government to do what is best for the American populace. I think 93% of Congress is out to serve it's own needs and make their pocketbooks fatter. The bureaucrats of the Executive Branch try to do as little as possible while trying to receive the most from the American taxpayer. There is little accountability in our government. You can shoot three people and fishstickz and still get away with it.

Reeeeaallly regretting some voting decisions of 2000s now.

Right - but the point is that they aren't messed up by having sex on TV or whatever.

Well, to be honest, I think that's about all you can really get out of the first amendment. Any arguments or reasoning to be made would have to be to prove that further rights apply, not less.

I don't fear them at all. This isn't fear you're hearing from me. It's, as JG put it, distrust. I don't trust the government to censor without infringing upon rights, and overstepping what I think should be or shouldn't be censored.

I'd give you a list of words I didn't think my kids should hear to a certain age. I'd give you another list of words that I want my kids to know and understand before a certain age. These words would not coincide with what anyone else would believe, and thus a board of censorship wouldn't be able to please even a majority. The majority of people don't give a spe.

I'll be honest with you. That really surprises me...
I can feel myself going from libertarian back towards commie territory...



As long as the government is mostly limited to telling people what they can do with their money, and not anything else, we're good..

If the judiciary didn't exercise the power of judicial review (which is, in fact, textual, based on the premises of the Supremacy Clause and Article III), the constitution would've been overthrown long before the Civil War. Read up on some constitutional history.

Ah the master of the non-sequitur!

--some guy, 2007

I kept reading the thread title as I am proposing an amendment to The Constipation. And that, my dear American friends, would be all.

Well, the high taxes don't necessarily mean they're not committed to capitalism. They have a pretty big welfare state, but also rather less regulation than, say, France or Germany.

Yes France and Germany tend to be very :downs: when it comes to many things regulatory, especially censorship.

Why don't you guys have a more Canadian style set up? That way im sure bush would've been out years ago.

2c from a completely uneducated person.

well, since you asked so nicely maybe i will consider it.

Note the note.

So you informing us, in your own words.. that you're an.. idiot..?

Talk about self esteem.

To answer this seriously...

Maybe. Any way you slice it, a majority voted for a second term for Bush. However, if we had the option to vote no confidence on Bush, we might well have done it by now.

Personally, I'm all for a parliamentary system and would support an amendment to the Constitution to make it happen.

Actually that's debatable.

And let's not forget that he actually didn't get the popular majority vote for his first term.

In a Parliamentary system, it wouldn't matter if Bush won a majority or not. It would matter if the Republicans won a majority in the legislature.

Just like in the electorate college system America uses.

if the united states used a parliamentary system, the president of the united states would be nancy pelosi.

I'm really not trying to diminish their current role but people seem to think that the Supreme Court is so righteous when, in fact, it's just as political as any other government institution.