[QUOTE="Ace6301"] >being butthurt on the internet >2012 You're also missing out the point of Kraychik. He's a facist caricature by design. I'm not sure if he's a fascist caricature, but a caricature without a doubt.
[QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"][QUOTE="Ace6301"] >being butthurt on the internet >2012 You're also missing out the point of Kraychik. He's a facist caricature by design. I'm not sure if he's a fascist caricature, but a caricature without a doubt. Seriously just keep an eye on some of the things he says. It's kind of fun to piece his actual beliefs together because of the irony.
[QUOTE="Darkman2007"][QUOTE="kraychik"][QUOTE="Darkman2007"] money has a part in it, as do superficial things, again , I would refer you to the old Kennedy Vs Nixon debate for that one Ok fine, so you then extend this to supporting limits on (arbitrarily and inconsistently defined) political contributions? It's one thing to recognize that people are fallible, it's something else altogether to think you can perfect people by controlling how they can spend their money on (arbitrarily and inconsistently defined) political speech. If you're going to limit how much my corporation can contribute directly to a campaign or to a PAC, then you better limit how much MSNBC or CNN can charge for a 30-second advertisement spot on their channel, or how much Hollywood can spend on its next blockbuster. again , Im not limiting speech , Im limiting how much external factors can influence that speech . and on the last point, I agree to a a certain extent, I think the media in general can play a very negative role in distorting the truth on alot of things. Your "limiting external factors" cannot be applied fairly or consistently. Don't you get that? Let freedom reign and let people express themselves however they wish. We need MORE money in politics, not less.
[QUOTE="kraychik"][QUOTE="Darkman2007"][QUOTE="kraychik"] Ok fine, so you then extend this to supporting limits on (arbitrarily and inconsistently defined) political contributions? It's one thing to recognize that people are fallible, it's something else altogether to think you can perfect people by controlling how they can spend their money on (arbitrarily and inconsistently defined) political speech. If you're going to limit how much my corporation can contribute directly to a campaign or to a PAC, then you better limit how much MSNBC or CNN can charge for a 30-second advertisement spot on their channel, or how much Hollywood can spend on its next blockbuster. again , Im not limiting speech , Im limiting how much external factors can influence that speech . and on the last point, I agree to a a certain extent, I think the media in general can play a very negative role in distorting the truth on alot of things. Your "limiting external factors" cannot be applied fairly or consistently. Don't you get that? Let freedom reign and let people express themselves however they wish. We need MORE money in politics, not less. Yes, and let's ensure that they are capped and regulated in a fair manner for each candidate!
[QUOTE="Ravensmash"][QUOTE="kraychik"][QUOTE="Darkman2007"] again , Im not limiting speech , Im limiting how much external factors can influence that speech . and on the last point, I agree to a a certain extent, I think the media in general can play a very negative role in distorting the truth on alot of things. Your "limiting external factors" cannot be applied fairly or consistently. Don't you get that? Let freedom reign and let people express themselves however they wish. We need MORE money in politics, not less. Yes, and let's ensure that they are capped and regulated in a fair manner for each candidate! thats exactly what Im saying, the message and policy is whats important
[QUOTE="Ravensmash"][QUOTE="kraychik"][QUOTE="Darkman2007"] again , Im not limiting speech , Im limiting how much external factors can influence that speech . and on the last point, I agree to a a certain extent, I think the media in general can play a very negative role in distorting the truth on alot of things. Your "limiting external factors" cannot be applied fairly or consistently. Don't you get that? Let freedom reign and let people express themselves however they wish. We need MORE money in politics, not less. Yes, and let's ensure that they are capped and regulated in a fair manner for each candidate! If you're not going to follow the thread, then don't participate. I've already explained in great detail how any attempt to limit money going towards poorly-defined "political speech" is bound to be a hypocritical and inconsistent mess. Moreover, we're speaking about contributions to "indirect" allies of candidates in the form of PACs, although I broadened to the context to include often-ignored platforms of expression of political speech, namely leftist media outlets like Hollywood and most cable news in America. You can't control some political speech and then ignore others, unless of course you're comfortable with being a hypocritical leftist.
[QUOTE="Darkman2007"][QUOTE="Ravensmash"][QUOTE="kraychik"] Your "limiting external factors" cannot be applied fairly or consistently. Don't you get that? Let freedom reign and let people express themselves however they wish. We need MORE money in politics, not less. Yes, and let's ensure that they are capped and regulated in a fair manner for each candidate! thats exactly what Im saying, the message and policy is whats important Still waiting for you to say you want limits on how much CNN and MSNBC can charge for advertisements on their networks. Still waiting for you to say there's a limit on how much Hollywood can spend on a political leftist film.
[QUOTE="Darkman2007"][QUOTE="Ravensmash"] Yes, and let's ensure that they are capped and regulated in a fair manner for each candidate!kraychik
thats exactly what Im saying, the message and policy is whats important Still waiting for you to say you want limits on how much CNN and MSNBC can charge for advertisements on their networks. Still waiting for you to say there's a limit on how much Hollywood can spend on a political leftist film. What do you mean by political leftist film? Give examples.
[QUOTE="kraychik"][QUOTE="Darkman2007"][QUOTE="Ravensmash"] Yes, and let's ensure that they are capped and regulated in a fair manner for each candidate! thats exactly what Im saying, the message and policy is whats important Still waiting for you to say you want limits on how much CNN and MSNBC can charge for advertisements on their networks. Still waiting for you to say there's a limit on how much Hollywood can spend on a political leftist film. well , I certainly think one could limit how much news broadcasters charge, or be bipartisan and show both messages. as for Hollywood , its different, were talking a political party , vs culture and art, a political party rules the country , so it has more direct effect.
[QUOTE="kraychik"][QUOTE="Darkman2007"] thats exactly what Im saying, the message and policy is whats importantRavensmash
Still waiting for you to say you want limits on how much CNN and MSNBC can charge for advertisements on their networks. Still waiting for you to say there's a limit on how much Hollywood can spend on a political leftist film. What do you mean by political leftist film? Give examples. Seriously? You're even worse than I thought.
[QUOTE="kraychik"][QUOTE="Darkman2007"] thats exactly what Im saying, the message and policy is whats importantDarkman2007
Still waiting for you to say you want limits on how much CNN and MSNBC can charge for advertisements on their networks. Still waiting for you to say there's a limit on how much Hollywood can spend on a political leftist film. well , I certainly think one could limit how much news broadcasters charge, or be bipartisan and show both messages. as for Hollywood , its different, were talking a political party , vs culture and art, a political party rules the country , so it has more direct effect. Excuse me? Hollywood isn't espousing a political message? You're a complete hypocrite because you want to (arrogantly) protect the average man from political messages by limiting contributions from people to campaigns or PACs, but don't want to limit money that gets poured into other outlets of political messaging like media outlets of Hollywood? The fact that you're comfortable telling a private company like MSNBC how much they can charge for a commercial is frightening. Well, about as frightening as it is that you are in support of controlling the expenditures of private persons towards political causes.
Also, who's going to define "both messages"? You want to regulate the media now and force them to show "both sides" of issues? You really are in favour of tyranny, you need to wake up.
[QUOTE="kraychik"] Still waiting for you to say you want limits on how much CNN and MSNBC can charge for advertisements on their networks. Still waiting for you to say there's a limit on how much Hollywood can spend on a political leftist film. kraychik
What do you mean by political leftist film? Give examples. Seriously? You're even worse than I thought. So in other words, you have no idea what you're talking about and will avoid the question.
[QUOTE="kraychik"] Still waiting for you to say you want limits on how much CNN and MSNBC can charge for advertisements on their networks. Still waiting for you to say there's a limit on how much Hollywood can spend on a political leftist film. kraychik
What do you mean by political leftist film? Give examples. Seriously? You're even worse than I thought. I haven't heard of that movie. Long title. Probably didn't open very well.
[QUOTE="Darkman2007"][QUOTE="kraychik"] Still waiting for you to say you want limits on how much CNN and MSNBC can charge for advertisements on their networks. Still waiting for you to say there's a limit on how much Hollywood can spend on a political leftist film. kraychik
well , I certainly think one could limit how much news broadcasters charge, or be bipartisan and show both messages. as for Hollywood , its different, were talking a political party , vs culture and art, a political party rules the country , so it has more direct effect. Excuse me? Hollywood isn't espousing a political message? You're a complete hypocrite because you want to (arrogantly) protect the average man from political messages by limiting contributions from people to campaigns or PACs, but don't want to limit money that gets poured into other outlets of political messaging like media outlets of Hollywood? The fact that you're comfortable telling a private company like MSNBC how much they can charge for a commercial is frightening. Well, about as frightening as it is that you are in support of controlling the expenditures of private persons towards political causes.
Also, who's going to define "both messages"? You want to regulate the media now and force them to show "both sides" of issues? You really are in favour of tyranny, you need to wake up.
I think you need to learn how to read, never did I say films do not carry a political message, sometimes they do , but there is a difference between a political party which is set to maybe govern a country, and some director who wants to make a movie.
[QUOTE="kraychik"][QUOTE="Ravensmash"] What do you mean by political leftist film? Give examples.
toast_burner
Seriously? You're even worse than I thought. So in other words, you have no idea what you're talking about and will avoid the question. Someone asking me to provide examples of leftist political films, which you are now effectively doing, reveals just how oblivious and leftist they are. It's like asking for proof of evolution. You and him are obviously awestruck as the presumption that Hollywood puts out movies with leftist themes, which reveals a lot about both of you.
[QUOTE="kraychik"] Someone asking me to provide examples of leftist political films, which you are now effectively doing, reveals just how oblivious and leftist they are. It's like asking for proof of evolution. You and him are obviously awestruck as the presumption that Hollywood puts out movies with leftist themes, which reveals a lot about both of you. Can you really equate a movie with alleged 'leftist themes' to a corporate campaign contribution of hundreds of millions of dollars as one in the same?
[QUOTE="Darkman2007"] well , I certainly think one could limit how much news broadcasters charge, or be bipartisan and show both messages. as for Hollywood , its different, were talking a political party , vs culture and art, a political party rules the country , so it has more direct effect.Darkman2007
Excuse me? Hollywood isn't espousing a political message? You're a complete hypocrite because you want to (arrogantly) protect the average man from political messages by limiting contributions from people to campaigns or PACs, but don't want to limit money that gets poured into other outlets of political messaging like media outlets of Hollywood? The fact that you're comfortable telling a private company like MSNBC how much they can charge for a commercial is frightening. Well, about as frightening as it is that you are in support of controlling the expenditures of private persons towards political causes.
Also, who's going to define "both messages"? You want to regulate the media now and force them to show "both sides" of issues? You really are in favour of tyranny, you need to wake up.
I think you need to learn how to read, never did I say films do not carry a political message, sometimes they do , but there is a difference between a political party which is set to maybe govern a country, and some director who wants to make a movie. But the issue is controlling political speech that mobilizes the electorate. You want to limit contributions to political parties or politicians, but don't want to limit expressions of political speech in other avenues that essentially support political parties of politicians. Don't you get it? You can't control one with the other, and it immediately becomes a disaster. You have such a contempt from freedom and what you perceive as the average person, it's twisted. In this thread you're personifying the leftist mastermind who wants to control people and protect them from themselves.
[QUOTE="kraychik"] Seriously? You're even worse than I thought. kraychik
So in other words, you have no idea what you're talking about and will avoid the question. Someone asking me to provide examples of leftist political films, which you are now effectively doing, reveals just how oblivious and leftist they are. It's like asking for proof of evolution. You and him are obviously awestruck as the presumption that Hollywood puts out movies with leftist themes, which reveals a lot about both of you. "Asking for evidence? You're a leftist. Shut up and listen to what I tell you. Freedom is Slavery and Truth is Lies."
[QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"][QUOTE="kraychik"] Someone asking me to provide examples of leftist political films, which you are now effectively doing, reveals just how oblivious and leftist they are. It's like asking for proof of evolution. You and him are obviously awestruck as the presumption that Hollywood puts out movies with leftist themes, which reveals a lot about both of you. Can you really equate a movie with alleged 'leftist themes' to a corporate campaign contribution of hundreds of millions of dollars as one in the same? You're right, leftist Hollywood is far more impactful on the perceptions of the electorate than public-relations commercials from BP or Bank of America.
[QUOTE="kraychik"] Seriously? You're even worse than I thought. kraychik
So in other words, you have no idea what you're talking about and will avoid the question. Someone asking me to provide examples of leftist political films, which you are now effectively doing, reveals just how oblivious and leftist they are. It's like asking for proof of evolution. You and him are obviously awestruck as the presumption that Hollywood puts out movies with leftist themes, which reveals a lot about both of you. I just find it hilarious that you equate a vague political message in a work of fiction, to full blown direct funding of a party through targeted campaign ads.
[QUOTE="kraychik"] Seriously? You're even worse than I thought. kraychik
So in other words, you have no idea what you're talking about and will avoid the question. Someone asking me to provide examples of leftist political films, which you are now effectively doing, reveals just how oblivious and leftist they are. It's like asking for proof of evolution. You and him are obviously awestruck as the presumption that Hollywood puts out movies with leftist themes, which reveals a lot about both of you.
OK I thought you were referring to films made in order to spread an agenda by a political party such as what the Nazi's did.
Hollywood makes films independently from government, any political themes in there are done so by their own accord and are hardly to blame for any political ideology.
[QUOTE="kraychik"][QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"][QUOTE="kraychik"] Someone asking me to provide examples of leftist political films, which you are now effectively doing, reveals just how oblivious and leftist they are. It's like asking for proof of evolution. You and him are obviously awestruck as the presumption that Hollywood puts out movies with leftist themes, which reveals a lot about both of you. Can you really equate a movie with alleged 'leftist themes' to a corporate campaign contribution of hundreds of millions of dollars as one in the same? You're right, leftist Hollywood is far more impactful on the perceptions of the electorate than public-relations commercials from BP or Bank of America. I don't think that's the case at all, but it's perfectly in line with your paranoia and persecution complex. The leftists are all coming to get you.
[QUOTE="Darkman2007"][QUOTE="kraychik"] Excuse me? Hollywood isn't espousing a political message? You're a complete hypocrite because you want to (arrogantly) protect the average man from political messages by limiting contributions from people to campaigns or PACs, but don't want to limit money that gets poured into other outlets of political messaging like media outlets of Hollywood? The fact that you're comfortable telling a private company like MSNBC how much they can charge for a commercial is frightening. Well, about as frightening as it is that you are in support of controlling the expenditures of private persons towards political causes.
Also, who's going to define "both messages"? You want to regulate the media now and force them to show "both sides" of issues? You really are in favour of tyranny, you need to wake up.
kraychik
I think you need to learn how to read, never did I say films do not carry a political message, sometimes they do , but there is a difference between a political party which is set to maybe govern a country, and some director who wants to make a movie. But the issue is controlling political speech that mobilizes the electorate. You want to limit contributions to political parties or politicians, but don't want to limit expressions of political speech in other avenues that essentially support political parties of politicians. Don't you get it? You can't control one with the other, and it immediately becomes a disaster. You have such a contempt from freedom and what you perceive as the average person, it's twisted. In this thread you're personifying the leftist mastermind who wants to control people and protect them from themselves. how much money a party has vs what it says is different, not being loaded with money doesnt prevent you from espousing a political ideology.
[QUOTE="kraychik"][QUOTE="toast_burner"]So in other words, you have no idea what you're talking about and will avoid the question.
toast_burner
Someone asking me to provide examples of leftist political films, which you are now effectively doing, reveals just how oblivious and leftist they are. It's like asking for proof of evolution. You and him are obviously awestruck as the presumption that Hollywood puts out movies with leftist themes, which reveals a lot about both of you.
OK I thought you were referring to films made in order to spread an agenda by a political party such as what the Nazi's did.
Hollywood makes films independently from government, any political themes in there are done so by their own accord and are hardly to blame for any political ideology.
Exactly. It's their business and I have no right to infringe on their freedom of expression. Although Hollywood personalities (as big as Stephen Spielberg) have been recruited by Democratic politicians to help them formulate their ads. Consider Hollywood Obama's personal ATM machine, with a recent Obama campaign ad being directed by Dacid Guggenheim and narrated by Tom Hanks. Just as the government has absolutely no right to limit the free speech and expenditures of leftist Hollywood personalities (i.e. Bill Maher's one-million-dollars donation to an Obama PAC), the government has no right to limit contributions from corporations towards political interests.
[QUOTE="Darkman2007"][QUOTE="kraychik"][QUOTE="Darkman2007"] I think you need to learn how to read, never did I say films do not carry a political message, sometimes they do , but there is a difference between a political party which is set to maybe govern a country, and some director who wants to make a movie. But the issue is controlling political speech that mobilizes the electorate. You want to limit contributions to political parties or politicians, but don't want to limit expressions of political speech in other avenues that essentially support political parties of politicians. Don't you get it? You can't control one with the other, and it immediately becomes a disaster. You have such a contempt from freedom and what you perceive as the average person, it's twisted. In this thread you're personifying the leftist mastermind who wants to control people and protect them from themselves. how much money a party has vs what it says is different, not being loaded with money doesnt prevent you from espousing a political ideology. I'm obviously wasting my time with you.
[QUOTE="kraychik"] Someone asking me to provide examples of leftist political films, which you are now effectively doing, reveals just how oblivious and leftist they are. It's like asking for proof of evolution. You and him are obviously awestruck as the presumption that Hollywood puts out movies with leftist themes, which reveals a lot about both of you.kraychik
OK I thought you were referring to films made in order to spread an agenda by a political party such as what the Nazi's did.
Hollywood makes films independently from government, any political themes in there are done so by their own accord and are hardly to blame for any political ideology.
Exactly. It's their business and I have no right to infringe on their freedom of expression. Although Hollywood personalities (as big as Stephen Spielberg) have been recruited by Democratic politicians to help them formulate their ads. Consider Hollywood Obama's personal ATM machine, with a recent Obama campaign ad being directed by Dacid Guggenheim and narrated by Tom Hanks. Just as the government has absolutely no right to limit the free speech and expenditures of leftist Hollywood personalities (i.e. Bill Maher's one-million-dollars donation to an Obama PAC), the government has no right to limit contributions from corporations towards political interests. But there are conservative personalities too - ones that are constantly in the mainstream. You can't control indirect political support or whatever, but you can ensure that direct support is regulated.
[QUOTE="kraychik"] I'm obviously wasting my time with you. You're wasting your time on this forum. You've obviously completely surrounded by leftists and anti-semites. What hope do you possibly have of raising them to your level? A fruitless endeavor if ever there was one.
[QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"][QUOTE="kraychik"] I'm obviously wasting my time with you. You're wasting your time on this forum. You've obviously completely surrounded by leftists and anti-semites. What hope do you possibly have of raising them to your level? A fruitless endeavor if ever there was one. shut up you fascist communist leftist
OK I thought you were referring to films made in order to spread an agenda by a political party such as what the Nazi's did.
Hollywood makes films independently from government, any political themes in there are done so by their own accord and are hardly to blame for any political ideology.
Ravensmash
Exactly. It's their business and I have no right to infringe on their freedom of expression. Although Hollywood personalities (as big as Stephen Spielberg) have been recruited by Democratic politicians to help them formulate their ads. Consider Hollywood Obama's personal ATM machine, with a recent Obama campaign ad being directed by Dacid Guggenheim and narrated by Tom Hanks. Just as the government has absolutely no right to limit the free speech and expenditures of leftist Hollywood personalities (i.e. Bill Maher's one-million-dollars donation to an Obama PAC), the government has no right to limit contributions from corporations towards political interests. But there are conservative personalities too - ones that are constantly in the mainstream. You can't control indirect political support or whatever, but you can ensure that direct support is regulated. The line between direct and indirect is blurry, drawn arbitrarily, and full of inconsistencies and hypocrisies. So don't try to articulate it. Is a pro-Obama film characterizing him as a "brave and bold leader" in the upcoming dramatization of the killing of Osama bin Laden directed by Kathryn Bigelow "direct" or "indirect" support? Is MSNBC's "lean-forward" leftist propagandization of its audience 24/7 "direct" or "indirect" support of Obama? Be serious, and recognize the absurdity of this direct/indirect distinction.
The above things would be indirect, unless the proceeds of said film were going to the Obama campaign. The right can easily do the same thing through talk radio, mainstream news, television or films (as can any other side). I'm talking about regulating DIRECT FUNDING towards a campaign used to pay for adverts and other related costs.
[QUOTE="Ravensmash"]The above things would be indirect, unless the proceeds of said film were going to the Obama campaign. The right can easily do the same thing through talk radio, mainstream news, television or films (as can any other side). I'm talking about regulating DIRECT FUNDING towards a campaign used to pay for adverts and other related costs. Again, I'm wasting my time. You think there's something magical about "direct" funding when it comes to your desires to protect the average person (irony alert) from themselves as opposed to "indirect" funding. As if Ed Schultz or Rachel Maddow are "indirect" about their advocacy for Obama. I believe in allowing them to all the freedom of speech they want, and you're for curbing this same freedom in the name of leftist utopianism. As usual, this is a left/right divide.
[QUOTE="kraychik"][QUOTE="Ravensmash"]The above things would be indirect, unless the proceeds of said film were going to the Obama campaign. The right can easily do the same thing through talk radio, mainstream news, television or films (as can any other side). I'm talking about regulating DIRECT FUNDING towards a campaign used to pay for adverts and other related costs. Again, I'm wasting my time. You think there's something magical about "direct" funding when it comes to your desires to protect the average person (irony alert) from themselves as opposed to "indirect" funding. As if Ed Schultz or Rachel Maddow are "indirect" about their advocacy for Obama. I believe in allowing them to all the freedom of speech they want, and you're for curbing this same freedom in the name of leftist utopianism. As usual, this is a left/right divide. So what do you think of something like this: http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/elections/election-spending/party-campaign-expenditure You think it's unfair?
Ah, the beauty of multiculturalism, where everyone lives happily side by side without ever noting differences...NOT.
LOL, David Cameron and Angela Merkel both admitted that multiculturalism fails, yet they're still embracing it.
gamerguru100
I agree with this. Literally NOTHING good has come out of multiculturalism, I think people should just stay where they are from and immigrant kids should just go back to their parents country because outsides never fully integrate into society our society, and when they do they try and change it.
I chose America=Doomed because greyfox says we do nothing but rape our womenz and exploit the world anyway..and we all know he is right about everything west related...
Ah, the beauty of multiculturalism, where everyone lives happily side by side without ever noting differences...NOT.
LOL, David Cameron and Angela Merkel both admitted that multiculturalism fails, yet they're still embracing it.
Crunchy_Nuts
I agree with this. Literally NOTHING good has come out of multiculturalism, I think people should just stay where they are from and immigrant kids should just go back to their parents country because outsides never fully integrate into society our society, and when they do they try and change it. f*ck that, I want to travel/work abroad one day hopefully. lol @ your 'lets build walls from the brown people' mentality.
Ah, the beauty of multiculturalism, where everyone lives happily side by side without ever noting differences...NOT.
LOL, David Cameron and Angela Merkel both admitted that multiculturalism fails, yet they're still embracing it.
Ravensmash
I agree with this. Literally NOTHING good has come out of multiculturalism, I think people should just stay where they are from and immigrant kids should just go back to their parents country because outsides never fully integrate into society our society, and when they do they try and change it. f*ck that, I want to travel/work abroad one day hopefully. lol @ your 'lets build walls from the brown people' mentality. Europe doesn't need to build any walls; it just needs stricter immigration policies.
Log in to comment