Elena Kagan most likely to be new SCOTUS Justice

[I'm Cleo!]

How dare the President suggest that Americans open their minds to opposing viewpoints! Proggressivism!

**Googles a little bit . . .**

Ah, I see that Glenn Beck tackled the issue of Cass Sunstein and Free Speech on Monday's radio show. Listen today to see what will appear on CFC OT tomorrow!

Cleo

 

[Merkinball]

How dare the President suggest that Americans open their minds to opposing viewpoints! Proggressivism! - Cleo

Screw the suggestion! If Cass Sunstein has his way we'll be forced to take in the opposing viewpoint. Don't you find it astonishingly hypocritical that one day Obama will go out and tell people to absorb opposing viewpoints to have a mature conservation, and then then next day tell the world that opposing viewpoints to his own are "troublesome." He castigates people for proposing ideas that are anti-thetical to his own and casts them aside as lies. And those need to be regulated mind you. But the man can go out and say anything he damn well pleases, no matter how absurd and devoid of truth, and it's okay.

 

[I'm Cleo!]

Screw the suggestion! If Cass Sunstein has his way we'll be forced to take in the opposing viewpoint. Don't you find it astonishingly hypocritical that one day Obama will go out and tell people to absorb opposing viewpoints to have a mature conservation, and then then next day tell the world that opposing viewpoints to his own are "troublesome."

No, because I know what the word "hypocritical" means.

He castigates people for proposing ideas that are anti-thetical to his own and casts them aside as lies.

Are they lies?

And those need to be regulated mind you.

What? Who's suggesting that? Is there any actual policy being proposed -- you know, one in the real world not in the Beck fantasy world -- that would regulate viewpoints? Because I'm pretty sure that such a policy would be unconstitutional.

But the man can go out and say anything he damn well pleases, no matter how absurd and devoid of truth, and it's okay.

Well, I really think you should try to engage Cass Sunstein's First Amendment work in a more serious way (if you're actually interested in discussing it, of course). The guy's been a constitutional law scholar for decades, and while I disagree with him quite frequently, he's very smart and always has an intelligent take on things. You might want to start with Democracy and the Problem of Free Speech, a whole book he wrote about the First Amendment fifteen years ago. (Cue someone saying, "see! he thinks Free Speech is a 'problem!'" without having read the book.) The guy's written a lot in his career, so it might be more difficult to discuss honestly the issues he brings up than simply to take some quote of his and declare that he's some kind of speech commissar for President Obama, but I think it would help foster a genuine discussion of our country and our Constitution. If that's what you're interested in, of course.

Cleo

 

[.Shane.]

i'm gonna ask eran

That takes whining to a whole new level. Going to complain to the mods about acronyms? That's rugged individualism for you.

 

[Quackers]

i'm a hero for standing up against the destruction of the english langauge

the last two sentances make no sense.

 

[.Shane.]

i'm a hero for standing up against the destruction of the english langauge

the last two sentances make no sense.

QFI



5char

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

OBAMA: If you're a fan of Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh, try reading a few columns on the Huffington Post website. It may make your blood boil, your mind may not be changed, but the practice of listening to opposing views is essential for effective citizenship.

Can fall into place and you can control media content and control "free" speech. Because free speech is troublesome.

Obama: Well I think that when you listen to Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck it’s pretty apparent. It’s troublesome.

Can someone explain to me what's wrong with either point of view?

 

[Grisu]

It's progressivism, oh, and net neutrality

 

[Merkinball]

Can someone explain to me what's wrong with either point of view?

You mean, what's wrong with the leader of a free country saying that free speech is troublesome? Obviously nothing. Insert Bushes name there and Al Gore and Air America for Beck and Limbaugh. You'd have a heart attack.

Are they lies? - Cleo

Few are, most aren't.

I bet Obama would find this article troublesome. But probably because it unearths his own lies.

What? Who's suggesting that? Is there any actual policy being proposed -- you know, one in the real world not in the Beck fantasy world -- that would regulate viewpoints? Because I'm pretty sure that such a policy would be unconstitutional. - Cleo

Step by step. A pragmatic and prudent approach. It's a chess match to these people. Having people in power like Sunstein, Sotomayor, and Kagan, who all believe in positive rights are a key piece to that chess match.

Well, I really think you should try to engage Cass Sunstein's First Amendment work in a more serious way (if you're actually interested in discussing it, of course). The guy's been a constitutional law scholar for decades, and while I disagree with him quite frequently, he's very smart and always has an intelligent take on things. You might want to start with Democracy and the Problem of Free Speech, a whole book he wrote about the First Amendment fifteen years ago. (Cue someone saying, "see! he thinks Free Speech is a 'problem!'" without having read the book.) The guy's written a lot in his career, so it might be more difficult to discuss honestly the issues he brings up than simply to take some quote of his and declare that he's some kind of speech commissar for President Obama, but I think it would help foster a genuine discussion of our country and our Constitution. If that's what you're interested in, of course. - Cleo

I'll keep my out for it, but Nudge was nauseating enough for me. The guy is an ego-maniacal histrionic lunatic. The guy is an elitist, and seeks to impose his view and way of life on everyone. Including free speech. I mean, he is the Regulatory Czar.

 

[Lord Gay]

histrionic lunatic. The guy is an elitist, and seeks to impose his view and way of life on everyone. Including free speech. I mean, he is the Regulatory Czar.

Histrionic? Elitist? Czar? You really need to try packing in more buzzwords Merk, you only got three that time.

 

[JollyRoger]

Good thing for free speech. Some of those words would go for 5 dollars on the open market.

 

[I'm Cleo!]

You mean, what's wrong with the leader of a free country saying that free speech is troublesome?

He didn't say that "free speech" was troublesome, but that some of the things that Beck, Limbaugh, et al., were saying were troublesome. Which is a very different thing.

I bet Obama would find this article troublesome. But probably because it unearths his own lies.

Hey, "I bet" that Dick Cheney would strangle a kitten with his own hands.

Step by step. A pragmatic and prudent approach. It's a chess match to these people. Having people in power like Sunstein, Sotomayor, and Kagan, who all believe in positive rights are a key piece to that chess match.

The idea that people like Cass Sunstein, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan are radicals in any sense of the word is so completely ridiculous, I have to laugh. The idea that they're involved in some conspiracy to "step by step" dismantle American democracy is so much more completely ridiculous, I can't even laugh.

I'll keep my out for it, but Nudge was nauseating enough for me. The guy is an ego-maniacal histrionic lunatic. The guy is an elitist, and seeks to impose his view and way of life on everyone. Including free speech. I mean, he is the Regulatory Czar.

Did you even read Nudge? The whole premise of the book was that the government shouldn't mandate what people can or cannot do but instead provide more information to them so they can made informed decisions themselves. The idea that a book like that -- written by a pair of professors from The University of Chicago -- counts as evidence that they're "seek[ing] to impose [their] view and way of life on everyone" might be even more ridiculous than the Sunstein / Sotomayor / Kagan conspiracy.

But "he is the Regulatory Czar," after all. (With scary capitalization and everything!)

Cleo

 

[GhostWriter16]

He didn't say that "free speech" was troublesome, but that some of the things that Beck, Limbaugh, et al., were saying were troublesome. Which is a very different thing.



Hey, "I bet" that Dick Cheney would strangle a kitten with his own hands.



The idea that people like Cass Sunstein, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan are radicals in any sense of the word is so completely ridiculous, I have to laugh. The idea that they're involved in some conspiracy to "step by step" dismantle American democracy is so much more completely ridiculous, I can't even laugh.



Did you even read Nudge? The whole premise of the book was that the government shouldn't mandate what people can or cannot do but instead provide more information to them so they can made informed decisions themselves. The idea that a book like that -- written by a pair of professors from The University of Chicago -- counts as evidence that they're "seek[ing] to impose [their] view and way of life on everyone" might be even more ridiculous than the Sunstein / Sotomayor / Kagan conspiracy.

But "he is the Regulatory Czar," after all. (With scary capitalization and everything!)

Cleo

I think most of what Obama says is troublesome.

Well, most of it is lies.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

You mean, what's wrong with the leader of a free country saying that free speech is troublesome?

Indeed. Because it is troublesome. It can cause troubles. And in case of Glenn Beck and Limbaugh this seems pretty clear. Freedom of speech allows these jokers to sell their crap as fact to a willfully ignorant audience. And they have every right to do so, and it's a good thing they have every right to do so. Doesn't make it any less troublesome.

Obviously nothing.

I'm glad we agree.

Insert Bushes name there and Al Gore and Air America for Beck and Limbaugh. You'd have a heart attack.

You're such a poor judge of character. I advice a little less projection and a little more observation next time.

I have never had a heart attack over any of Bush's quotes. I just thanked Zeus he wasn't my leader. I've had a good laugh about some of them though.

Al Gore's statements with regard to climate change have been troublesome. He get props for bringing it to the attention of many, but loses them because the exaggerated claims he made were easy to dismiss thus hurting the cause he claimed he was fighting for. He's a politician, not a scientist.

 

[Merkinball]

He didn't say that "free speech" was troublesome, but that some of the things that Beck, Limbaugh, et al., were saying were troublesome. Which is a very different thing. - Cleo

They're not different. They're intrinsically connected to one another at the hip. If what Beck and Limbaugh say is troublesome, then by extension to the freedom to say those things is also troublesome.

The idea that people like Cass Sunstein, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan are radicals in any sense of the word is so completely ridiculous, I have to laugh. The idea that they're involved in some conspiracy to "step by step" dismantle American democracy is so much more completely ridiculous, I can't even laugh. - Cleo

I never said that they were radicals. They strongly doubt these people would use violent means to their ends. They're elitist pragmatists and they understand that the most effective way to achieve their goals is to appear as benevolent as possible. They're not going completely dismantle American Democracy. I never suggested that. They're just going to selectively identify elements within that they disagree with, and transform those elements into something that is more palatable to their narrow, and to be sure, it is a very narrow, worldview.

The whole premise of the book was that the government shouldn't mandate what people can or cannot do but instead provide more information to them so they can made informed decisions themselves. - Cleo

He goes much farther than that. It isn't matter of providing more information, it's about providing specific sets of information. And on some level Sunstein is calling for government mandates: It is legitimate for choice architects to try to influence people's behavior in order to make their lives longer, healthier, and better. Choice architects would obviously exist as government mandates. While Sunstein won't tell you that you can't eat junk food, good luck finding it anywhere thanks to his government mandate. He talks about forcing people to save for retirement. A little nudge here, and a little nudge there, and we all behave like Cass Sunstein wants us to.

 

[RedRalph]

They're not different. They're intrinsically connected to one another at the hip. If what Beck and Limbaugh say is troublesome, then by extension to the freedom to say those things is also troublesome.

Oh for Christ's sake... so nothing anyone is history has ever said can be described as troublesome?

 

[I'm Cleo!]

They're not different. They're intrinsically connected to one another at the hip. If what Beck and Limbaugh say is troublesome, then by extension to the freedom to say those things is also troublesome.

No, the right to speech and the content of the speech are different. Honestly, I can't believe I just had to write that.

I never said that they were radicals. They strongly doubt these people would use violent means to their ends. They're elitist pragmatists and they understand that the most effective way to achieve their goals is to appear as benevolent as possible. They're not going completely dismantle American Democracy. I never suggested that. They're just going to selectively identify elements within that they disagree with, and transform those elements into something that is more palatable to their narrow, and to be sure, it is a very narrow, worldview.

Ahh, yes, "pragmatism." More Beck language (Beckian? Beckish? Beckhili?). Let me tell you, Merkinball: the mythos that Glenn Beck has written is all made up. It's fantasy. If he stays popular for another year and keeps writing more original material, it's going to be so fantastic that Metallica will be writing songs about it.

But apropos of the OP, can you please tell us what Elena Kagan's "worldview" is? And if you can, can you please tell us where you learned it? There are a lot of people -- conservatives and liberals -- who have no idea what Elena Kagan thinks about important issues.

He goes much farther than that. It isn't matter of providing more information, it's about providing specific sets of information.

Yes, that "specific set" of information is what we call "facts about reality." Which admittedly overlaps very narrowly with conservatism, so I see how a conservative could think that he's using the power of government to push a particular, biased viewpoint.

Again, the whole point of choice architecture is to overcome inherent biases and lead people to make decisions with accurate information -- "accurate" as defined by "in accordance with reality."

Cleo

 

[Formaldehyde]

You mean, what's wrong with the leader of a free country saying that free speech is troublesome?

There is quite a difference between free speech and deliberately telling the same lies over and over again as part of a concerted propaganda campaign. But being so busy that you never have a chance to watch Fox News as you continue to claim, I can see why you might be so confused over the difference.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

What's that quote which is bandied around with people who have 24 hour freedom hard-ons? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.

So, sure freedom costs blood of patriots *high fives* but don't you dare say it's "troublesome" *sneers all around*

Don't tread on me! hisss!

 

[Merkinball]

No, the right to speech and the content of the speech are different. Honestly, I can't believe I just had to write that. - Cleo

Which is why this administration is making such an overt effort to discredit and destroy media entities that don't fall in line. Right? Beck, Limbaugh, and Fox News are hardly accurate 100% of the time, but they do serve as a check and balance within the media, and as a check and balance on our current government. The falsehoods that come out of these entities are no more numerous than the gross falsehoods and lies that have come out of the administration, or the lies that are promulgated throughout the mainstream press. The idea that the government can selectively choose which entities to castigate based on political grounds is dangerous to free speech.

Ahh, yes, "pragmatism." More Beck language (Beckian? Beckish? Beckhili?). Let me tell you, Merkinball: the mythos that Glenn Beck has written is all made up. It's fantasy. If he stays popular for another year and keeps writing more original material, it's going to be so fantastic that Metallica will be writing songs about it. - Cleo

Oh yes, I've been mysteriously absorbing the mythos of Glenn Beck as I've spent non-stop 16 hour days for weeks trying to finish my degree.

In the elite spheres of academia and government in which she has learned and worked, Kagan, 50, has more typically exhibited an analytical style, a knack for forging consensus, a pragmatism rather than a passion for her own ideas.

Where did I get this? From Limbaugh? From Hannity? FROM GLENN BECK!

No. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/10/AR2010051002787.html

Elena Kagen is a pragmatic individual. I do have the freedom of choice to make clearly obvious factual statements right?

And I don't really think it's even worth debating that Sunstein is a pragmatist. It's not a pejorative. That's their philosophy. Not a big deal and I am not attacking them.

Yes, that "specific set" of information is what we call "facts about reality." Which admittedly overlaps very narrowly with conservatism, so I see how a conservative could think that he's using the power of government to push a particular, biased viewpoint.

Again, the whole point of choice architecture is to overcome inherent biases and lead people to make decisions with accurate information -- "accurate" as defined by "in accordance with reality." - Cleo

That may be so, but that doesn't make it any less totalitarian and antithetical to the notions of liberty and freedom. Despite what you and Cass may think, rationality and irrationality are not universalities that rest squarely on your shoulders. What's even worse about Sunstein, is that his statist vision creates an aura that he claims to seek to destroy, and simply goes to show how nefarious he really is. He loved cash for clunkers because of the illusion it created, despite how the "fact of reality" about the program was that it was a complete and total failure across every metric. Cass tries to have his cake and eat it too so long as it's suites on personal ideological and political view, and he will use government to do everything in his power to ensure that it happens. It's a dystopic novel at its best. The worst part about Sunstein's self dubbed paternal libertarianism is that the paternal aspect destroys they very fabric of liberty that this country was founded upon. Despite what pragmatists like Sunstein and Clinton may feel, there's nothing wrong with the Amish, or any other group who does not adhere to their own philosophical world view. It's none of my business if a girl wants to destroy her life by partaking in premarital sex at 14, and then get an abortion (Cass will surely not try to nudge a girl away from this), and it's none of Cass's business how the food is presented in the lunch line, or if we save for our retirement.