Canadian Born Patriot dominates senate in 4th longest filibuster ever!

[kentonio]

I'm not quite sure why Lincoln is referred as an exceptional candidate. He barely attracted the support of his own party let alone the Democrats.

No-one gives a **** about his candidacy, it was the whole defeating the traitorous confederate scum that he's rightly held in high esteem for. Just a shame he didn't finish the job and raze Texas to the ground and then salt the ashes.

[DinoDoc]

No-one gives a **** about his candidacy, it was the whole defeating the traitorous confederate scum that he's rightly held in high esteem for. Just a shame he didn't finish the job and raze Texas to the ground and then salt the ashes.

It amazes me that Belfast still exists.

[N35t0r]

[Dinner]

I believe it is mostly an American thing to close your ears and eyes to other points of view. Well, American as well as some fanatical religious sects.

It's more like politically motivated hack sources which have been proven to lie over and over again aren't worth wasting time on. Most people will listen to other view points but ever since Reagan repealed the fairness doctrine and Fox News sued (and won) the right to lie and call it news (which was literally what Fox did) then... What is the point of wasting time on sources which, by their own admission, constantly lie? I like to hear opposing view points but I want them to be based upon things which are factually true and not just lies.

[regexcellent]

I believe it is mostly an American thing to close your ears and eyes to other points of view. Well, American as well as some fanatical religious sects.

Huffington Post is not something you read to get alternate points of view. It's something you read to reinforce your own, liberal, point of view.

[regexcellent]

It's more like politically motivated hack sources which have been proven to lie over and over again aren't worth wasting time on. Most people will listen to other view points but ever since Reagan repealed the fairness doctrine and Fox News sued (and won) the right to lie and call it news (which was literally what Fox did) then... What is the point of wasting time on sources which, by their own admission, constantly lie? I like to hear opposing view points but I want them to be based upon things which are factually true and not just lies.

Ever since free speech became legal people started saying things on the news that I disagree with and this is horrible because

[Dinner]

We're not talking about opinions or disagreeing with opinions, dumb ass. We're talking about literally suing for the right to lie, the right to say factually untrue things, and yet still call it news. That's actually illegal in most countries; it's illegal in Canada and that's why Fox Noise couldn't get a license in Canada because they were unwilling to agree to not deliberately lie.

[Dinner]

BTW you can deliberately lie in Canada but you can't deliberately lie and then call it news. It used to be that way in America until Reagan took a sloppy **** all over the people. That's what caused much of the political dysfunction in this country today too btw.

[Patroklos]

Oerdin talking about lying....precious.

[regexcellent]

We're not talking about opinions or disagreeing with opinions, dumb ass. We're talking about literally suing for the right to lie, the right to say factually untrue things, and yet still call it news. That's actually illegal in most countries; it's illegal in Canada and that's why Fox Noise couldn't get a license in Canada because they were unwilling to agree to not deliberately lie.

Like I said, ever since free speech became legal people started saying things on the news that I disagree with and this is horrible because

People have a right to say what they want even if it isn't true. It's not the government's business to decide what is true and what is false and thank God for that. Jesus ****ing Christ.

[kentonio]

Like I said, ever since free speech became legal people started saying things on the news that I disagree with and this is horrible because

People have a right to say what they want even if it isn't true. It's not the government's business to decide what is true and what is false and thank God for that. Jesus ****ing Christ.

Only in bizarro right-wing world could allowing the press to openly lie be a good thing.

[regexcellent]

The depths of your stupidity are fascinating. Who decides who's telling the truth? Only in a bizarro authoritarian police state could banning the press from being dishonest be a good thing.

[kentonio]

The depths of your stupidity are fascinating. Who decides who's telling the truth? Only in a bizarro authoritarian police state could banning the press from being dishonest be a good thing.

Contrary to popular neo-Republican beliefs, you certainly can decide who is telling the truth in a large proportion of cases. That is why the press used to react to politicians telling blatant lies by eviscerating them publicly for it.

Here's a few pointers, as you clearly struggle with concepts like truth and honesty:

If a politician or media source claims that a majority of Americans are against something, when they have no evidence to support that claim, and when all polling shows that the majority of Americans are NOT against something, that's a lie.

If a politician or media source claims that a new piece of legislation will lead to the establishment of internment camps or death panels when that piece of legislation says no such thing, that is a lie.

See, it's actually pretty easy to tell when a lot of things are truthful or just lies, and really doesn't require the establishment of a police state. Most of us were taught this kind of thing in kindergarten of course, but I realize that the US education system in some states can be a little.. patchy.

[DinoDoc]

Why is the GOP trying so desperately to rescue Obamacare? If a delay fails, would it not make sense from their point of view to simply mandate the law be implemented as written minus any delays, exceptions and/or waivers the President has seen fit to hand out to favored slices of the population by executive fiat? I'm starting to come around to the let it burn strategy with this law. If the Democratic Party wants it so desperately they should be forced to deal with all of it as written and the consequences that flow from that.

[rah]

Actually reading your comment Kentonio I'm unsure what your arguing for. You say

See, it's actually pretty easy to tell when a lot of things are truthful or just lies, and really doesn't require the establishment of a police state.

Which seems to support that we don't need the government to be involved at all. Then after you say it's easy, you insinuate that most Americans are too stupid to tell, so maybe we do need the government to tell us. You can't have it both ways.

I hate to say I kind of agree with Reg here. The government shouldn't be the one to have to tell whether someone is lying. That role should be done the news industry as a whole. Especially with the internet these days. It's not like the past where you had limited access to check out facts presented.

And let's be real, there is always places to go if you want to confirm/listen to your own stupidity/biases.