• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

NorfolkVA judge orders website shut down

bicycleman said:
City municipalities have decided to follow the socialistic leanings of the Obama regime.
Click to expand...

Moderator's Warning:
The thread has zero to do with Obama. Knock off the trolling.
 
Dittohead not! said:
This should help put your mind at ease regarding the so called "fairness doctrine."



As for that "Constitution free zone", now that's right up there with the Patriot Act and asset forfeiture on the list of attacks on basic liberties. I'm not sure how we can support the idea of a "free speech zone" either. I thought he whole country was a free speech zone.
Click to expand...

Amen to that. I never heard of free speech zones until it was mentioned on this thread. Talk about destroying the Constitution. Incidentally, I didn't care for the restriction imposed by the Bush administration's Patriot Act, either. I argued constantly against this policy. It's that saying: If you give up your freedom for security, soon you will have neither.

Getting back to Norfolk, I think Judge Poston is an elected judge, and he's worried now about being re-elected. I guess his partisanship got in the way of his knowledge of the law. Then again, the way politicians work these days, none of them seem to know the law or care, either way.
 
obvious Child said:
Damn those progressives for stopping clear cutting, dumping toxic waste in our drinking water and child labor!

Excuse me while I have a laugh at your expense.
Click to expand...

Nobody has stopped clear cutting where I live. I am a tree-hugger from way back, but I'm still a conservative too. That's where I move away from a lot of conservatives regarding destroying trees. That's all I'm going to say lest Captain Courtesy come in and warn me about treetrolling. :lol:
 
I wonder what Burfoot is doing right now that his favorite judge has vacated his ruling? Does Burfoot still think he has a case?
 
Last edited:
Dittohead not! said:
This should help put your mind at ease regarding the so called "fairness doctrine."



As for that "Constitution free zone", now that's right up there with the Patriot Act and asset forfeiture on the list of attacks on basic liberties. I'm not sure how we can support the idea of a "free speech zone" either. I thought he whole country was a free speech zone.
Click to expand...

Well, the asset forfeiture started during the Clinton years, all under the guise of fighting the drug war. Then local police departments started depending on it so they could buy more equipment, since the city budget fell short of that.
 
bicycleman said:
Yep. Soon it will surface as full-blown communism.
Click to expand...

How will this Communism surface?

Will it be more Maoist or Marxist? Will we go the path of N. Korea or Cambodia? Do we have an Albanian chance in hell? or are you just talking thru your ass because you feel that if it is against your paradigm that it must be bad, and it must infact be Communism?
 
Arch Enemy said:
How will this Communism surface?

Will it be more Maoist or Marxist? Will we go the path of N. Korea or Cambodia? Do we have an Albanian chance in hell? or are you just talking thru your ass because you feel that if it is against your paradigm that it must be bad, and it must infact be Communism?
Click to expand...

I'm sorry but I can't answer your challenge. I have been told I can't talk about him and his plans.
 
bicycleman said:
I'm sorry but I can't answer your challenge. I have been told I can't talk about him and his plans.
Click to expand...

It is because you do not know what Communism is, but you do feel an urge to throw the word around, as if it is a common insult.

Here is a hint though: You don't start Communism from an elected office.
 
Arch Enemy said:
It is because you do not know what Communism is, but you do feel an urge to throw the word around, as if it is a common insult.

Here is a hint though: You don't start Communism from an elected office.
Click to expand...

Let's here what communism is. I know you're dying to enlighten the world. Please define it, but remember, you must break it down into simple terms so an old dog like I can understand it.
 
bicycleman said:
Let's here what communism is. I know you're dying to enlighten the world. Please define it, but remember, you must break it down into simple terms so an old dog like I can understand it.
Click to expand...

Sure.

It involves the collectivization of thoughts or actions of a certain selection of society depending on the flavor of Communism you choose.
Marxist Communism was about uniting the working class and creating a classless society after usurping the power of the bourgeoise. This idea focuses on cycles, and cannot be forced.

Maoist Communism is revolution amongst the agrarian class. In this Communist paradigm the farmers are to be given collectivized land and then their practices of hard, daily labor are to be used to incite the rest of the population to enrich the State. For example, school children right before the "Great Leap Forward" would collect items made of metal, like iron cups and toys, and would throw it into a great furnace. Iron is the symbol of industrialization, and industrialization is to progress the agrarian class structure into Communism.

The brood of Communism in Cambodia was based on farmers, but it was a much more bloody and bloody-thirsty communism than seen before. It involved mass liquidation of the intelligent class, and large scale concentration camps. This Communism relished in shedding blood.
 
Arch Enemy said:
How will this Communism surface?

Will it be more Maoist or Marxist? Will we go the path of N. Korea or Cambodia? Do we have an Albanian chance in hell? or are you just talking thru your ass because you feel that if it is against your paradigm that it must be bad, and it must infact be Communism?
Click to expand...

Neither, or it will be a hybrid of Marxist + Capitalisim at best. The United States is too far from a widespread agrarian society so any chance at a Maoist form would have had to occur during the 1800's or prior. After the industrial revolution it would have been harder to pull off and would today, require a full dictatorial overtaking, oppressive structure and near enslavement of the population to occur. Not likely. Much easier to initiate a step by step march to centralized the government power structure and go with a classless society by penalizing the rich and redistribution of wealth the lower classes while increasing the power of unions. What we'll have a hard time with is what to do with the classeless society when we get it. We'll need to have some sort of work -- China has a working class and their manipulation of goods/services and low cost products/low wages coupled with high exports now is causing greater wealth in certain areas. The balance of Capitalism's ability to create wealth and a classless society / spreading that wealth will be a key to success and frankly, has never really been successful.

Communism has too many pit falls IMO. However, socialism coupled with capitalism and the European model of government / tax / redistribution and government involvement have struck a balance between acceptance and function. The sociological and socio-economic question is with the United States be able to adopt such a balance and if they do, will they ACCEPT it. After all, we exist as the refuse from high society of Europe and from inception, wanted to distance ourselves from such society - at the time, monarchy's.
 
bicycleman said:
Would the revival of the Fairness Doctrine stir some thought processes in that little head of yours? What regime constantly berates conservative talk radio and TV? What regime hints at bringing back the Fairness Doctrine when you know quite well fairness is the furthest from the agenda? Think, little one.
Who wants to kill conservative talk shows because he claims that blacks, Hispanics, and women are not represented by talk radio?
Click to expand...

Not Obama.

White House: Obama Opposes 'Fairness Doctrine' Revival

FOXNews.com - White House: Obama Opposes 'Fairness Doctrine' Revival

Jeez, this was on FOX, you'd think you would have seen it.
 
samsmart said:
Dittohead not! did the research on those. Thanks. And here's a graphic showing exactly where the Constitution-free zones are.
Click to expand...

WTF is this? This is parody, right?
 
Ockham said:
Whew. What a relief. And we all know that politicians can be taken 100% at their word. :doh
Click to expand...

As usual, you simply dismiss any evidence that is inconvenient to you as lies.

If Obama had come out in support of the Fairness Doctrine, you'd probably believe him.

When and if Obama ever actually tries to impose the Fairness Doctrine, you let us know. Until then, he hasn't, and has said he won't, and that's all the evidence we have. And it totally pwns you. And you can't admit it.
 
misterman said:
As usual, you simply dismiss any evidence that is inconvenient to you as lies.
Click to expand...

Well, there's a bevy of politicians who have said one thing and done another, Obama included. You want links or will you dismiss the evidence already piling up?

misterman said:
If Obama had come out in support of the Fairness Doctrine, you'd probably believe him.
Click to expand...
Nicely created strawman, but you don't know me nor what I would do.

misterman said:
When and if Obama ever actually tries to impose the Fairness Doctrine, you let us know. Until then, he hasn't, and has said he won't, and that's all the evidence we have. And it totally pwns you. And you can't admit it.
Click to expand...

Yes proving a negative is such pwnage! :lol:

Go back to your crystal ball and kool-aid party misterman. You're views have zero credibility and are losing more every day. Not everyone wants to play "hope and change" patty cake shill games disguised as "substantive" discussion. You want to take politicians at their word... go for it. :2wave:
 
Do you have any substance to add to this or are you done?

Obama has stated he doesn't support the Fairness Doctrine and hasn't tried to impose it. I posted a link to a news source (one trusted by rightwingers) quoting the White House as saying so.

Until something changes, that's the way it is. The case that Obama supports the Fairness Doctrine loses, bigtime. It's a joke. And it's pathetic to simply say it's a lie or attack the poster.
 
Last edited:
misterman said:
Do you have any substance to add to this or are you done?

Obama has stated he doesn't support the Fairness Doctrine and hasn't tried to impose it.

Until something changes, that's the way it is. The case that Obama supports the Fairness Doctrine loses, bigtime. It's a joke.
Click to expand...

I'm not claiming that - I'm stating you're basis of faith on what a politicians says is flawed given politicians track record in general. You want substance... here's all the promises Obama has failed to live up to in his first year:

PolitiFact | The Obameter: Obama's Campaign Promises that are Promise Broken

The best being: #515 which states: "No family making less than $250,000 will see "any form of tax increase."

:2wave:
 
Ockham said:
I'm not claiming that - I'm stating you're basis of faith on what a politicians says is flawed given politicians track record in general. You want substance... here's all the promises Obama has failed to live up to in his first year:

PolitiFact | The Obameter: Obama's Campaign Promises that are Promise Broken

The best being: #515 which states: "No family making less than $250,000 will see "any form of tax increase."

:2wave:
Click to expand...

I didn't say I have absolute faith. I said he has said he doesn't support it, AND he hasn't done anything to impose it.

When and if that changes, you'll have a point. Until then, you have nothing.

This is the claim I was responding to:

These city municipalities are getting on the band wagon and following in Obama's footsteps.
Click to expand...

There are no such footsteps. Yes, Obama could violate his promise. But he hasn't.
 
Last edited:
ON the issue of "constitution-free zones":

Normally under the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, the American people are not generally subject to random and arbitrary stops and searches.

The border, however, has always been an exception. There, the longstanding view is that the normal rules do not apply. For example the authorities do not need a warrant or probable cause to conduct a “routine search.”
Click to expand...

"The border" refers to a line, not a zone. It applies someone trying to enter the U.S. not someone near the border but already in the U.S.
 
misterman said:
I didn't say I have absolute faith.
Click to expand...
You went out of your way to state Obama said he will not support it and pushed a Fox News link as evidence. Then you defend that position stating he has not yet endorsed it. What do you base your position on? I base my position on his record, you base it on his jibba-jabba.

misterman said:
I said he has said he doesn't support it, AND he hasn't done anything to impose it.
Click to expand...
Other than a "no **** sherlock" moment, he's also taken that position a few times especially on taxes, ie. #515, yet the result is different now isn't it. Hence, my statement that because Obama is not supporting it now, does not mean he won't change his mind in the future - of which you stated I should "let you know" when he supports it. Another "no **** sherlock" moment. Of course I'll let you know...


misterman said:
When and if that changes, you'll have a point. Until then, you have nothing.
Click to expand...
I have his existing record - which gets worse by the day.
 
Ockham said:
You went out of your way to state Obama said he will not support it and pushed a Fox News link as evidence. Then you defend that position stating he has not yet endorsed it. What do you base your position on?
Click to expand...

Huh?

I posted the link. What is the confusion here?

Of course I'll let you know...
Click to expand...

You be sure to do that.

Until then, you got nothing. Obama has NOT imposed the Fairness Doctrine. Obama has NOT said he wants to imposed the Fairness Doctrine.

So until he does otherwise, you got nothing. You need to sit quietly and wait for something to change.

I have his existing record - which gets worse by the day.
Click to expand...

His existing record on the Fairness Doctrine couldn't be more clear.

You need to learn to accept reality and move on sometimes.
 
misterman said:
Huh?

I posted the link. What is the confusion here?
Click to expand...

What do you base your opinion on?



misterman said:
You be sure to do that.
Click to expand...
Count on it.

misterman said:
Until then, you got nothing. Obama has NOT imposed the Fairness Doctrine. Obama has NOT said he wants to imposed the Fairness Doctrine.
Click to expand...
He also said he will not impose new taxes. How'd that work out for ya?
misterman said:
You need to sit quietly and wait for something to change.
Click to expand...
If nothing else, you'll know I don't sit quietly for anyone. :2rofll:


misterman said:
His existing record on the Fairness Doctrine couldn't be more clear.
Click to expand...
As was his existing record on taxes, until it changed.

misterman said:
You need to learn to accept reality and move on sometimes.
Click to expand...
Reality is politicians more often than not, change their position and in Obama's case, do so when it benefits them. Extract nose from Obama's arse and look around.
 
You're like the gun guys who insist Obama's after their guns. He says he's not, he hasn't done anything, yet you're just sure of it.

Obama's stated policy is not to impose the Fairness Doctrine. So far he has followed that.

When and if anything changes, let us know. Until then, you got nothing. Move on.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom