Conservatives get outraged when a celebrity talks politics...

[NCBirdfan]

...as long as it's not one of their "expert" entertainers

One way to understand Bob Costas’ comments about gun violence during halftime of NBC’s Sunday evening football game is to interpret them as yet another example of media self-absorption. And in fact, by turning a horrific story of domestic violence and suicide into a cheap story about the overwrought reaction to a professional commentator, the national press did proudly fulfill the timeless jeremiad of “Broadcast News” to “never forget (that) we’re the real story, not them.”

But as repulsive and predictable as that narcissism is, it did inadvertently spotlight a significant problem plaguing our civic discourse. Call it Shut Up and Sing Syndrome.

Hypocritical to the core.

[jre]

Bob Costas should be applauded for exercising his 1st amendment rights to suggest our 2nd amendment rights should be slightly restricted by passing reasonable gun control laws that would curb violent crime.

The right will has become unhinged over the Costas comments and are over reacting again....The Brady campaign to Prevent Gun violence has scored Obama with an 'F' regarding his gun control efforts during his first term.

[Grindelwald]

Gun control does not equal gun ban. Why don't the right wing understand this?

[dsummoner]

Gun control does not equal gun ban. Why don't the right wing understand this?

Just like controlling the speech of [insert Libbie totem pole of oppressed group member here] doesn't equal a free speech ban...

What is it about fascist government boot licking Libbies that they can't seem to grasp the concept of fundamental individual rights?

[cprenegade]

...as long as it's not one of their "expert" entertainers


Hypocritical to the core.

Bob Costas is certainly entitled to his opinion, but imo he used a tragedy and a national sports audience to turn the conversation away from the tragedy and onto a rant against guns. All of the other Sunday football shows addressed the tragedy without becoming political. As for hypocritical, I've found it works in all ways. Let's not forget how Baltimore fans felt about Costas' opinions when he used a pre-game commentary before the Raven's first game in Baltimore to condemn Modell and the organization for leaving a loyal fan base in Cleveland only to follow the money. He also condemned Baltimore fans who were willing to embrace Clevelands move forgetting that they were crying about the Colts being stolen from them. Costas was looked at in a slightly different light by the people of Baltimore, democrats and republicans, back then.

[pickles]

Just like controlling the speech of [insert Libbie totem pole of oppressed group member here] doesn't equal a free speech ban...

What is it about fascist government boot licking Libbies that they can't seem to grasp the concept of fundamental individual rights?

Gee, D-Summ, for all the ample proof that you can't write which you provide daily on this board, I always assumed you could read.

So what can't you grasp about "well-regulated?"

[SoSad]

Conservatives get outraged when a celebrity talks politics...

I see. I just get outraged when a celebrity talks. I'm not too particular about what the subject might be.

[dsummoner]

Gee, D-Summ, for all the ample proof that you can't write which you provide daily on this board, I always assumed you could read.

So what can't you grasp about "well-regulated?"

Where does it say by whom said regulations should be determined?

Now, back to you slinking away and licking your wounds (along with your human pets).

[pickles]

Where does it say by whom said regulations should be determined?

Now, back to you slinking away and licking your wounds (along with your human pets).

Really? That's your moronic defense? You're devolving in front of my very eyes.

The body responsible for making laws would clearly be in charge of those regulations.

[dsummoner]

Really? That's your moronic defense? You're devolving in front of my very eyes.

The body responsible for making laws would clearly be in charge of those regulations.

Your bitterness is best reserved for yourself and your human pets. Nobody here is responsible for your repeated failures at life.

A Bill of Rights enumerating individual rights, differentiated and inviolable by government... and yet, somehow, subverting the whole concept of individual liberties, government should be the one dictating those liberties.

The licking of the government boot crowd goes through all sorts of contortions to lick that government boot.

[pickles]

Your bitterness is best reserved for yourself and your human pets. Nobody here is responsible for your repeated failures at life.

A Bill of Rights enumerating individual rights, differentiated and inviolable by government... and yet, somehow, subverting the whole concept of individual liberties, government should be the one dictating those liberties.

The licking of the government boot crowd goes through all sorts of contortions to lick that government boot.

Do you mean to tell me our rights stem from government?

[dsummoner]

Do you mean to tell me our rights stem from government?

In actuality or in construct as per the basis of ideals upon which the country was founded?

[pickles]

In actuality or in construct as per the basis of ideals upon which the country was founded?

Both.

[dsummoner]

Both.

The answers are different. The actuality is that 'rights' only exist in accordance with the might that one has to make them exist. On the second, the Bill of Rights was specifically put into place, over the objections of the Federalists, to limit government power and provide enumerated individual rights based on the concept of natural rights.

[pickles]

The answers are different. The actuality is that 'rights' only exist in accordance with the might that one has to make them exist. On the second, the Bill of Rights was specifically put into place, over the objections of the Federalists, to limit government power and provide enumerated individual rights based on the concept of natural rights.

Does such a concept exist?

[dsummoner]

Does such a concept exist?

Only when created by the minds of men and almost purely following a Western historical experience.

There is a reason why individuals look to constructs not only external to man but 'greater' than man (such as mythological beasts and nature) followed with the claim of axiomatic nature... that which man giveth, man can taketh away.

[BlandFood]

Gun control does not equal gun ban. Why don't the right wing understand this?

Hundreds of gun laws on the books as it is, enforce them instead of making up more. The animal should have been shot BEFORE he killed his unmarried baby momma. Since the NRA is the 'new" KKK according to the village buffoon should guns be outlawed to law abiding blacks?

[pickles]

Only when created by the minds of men and almost purely following a Western historical experience.

There is a reason why individuals look to constructs not only external to man but 'greater' than man (such as mythological beasts and nature) followed with the claim of axiomatic nature... that which man giveth, man can taketh away.

So, no it doesn't.

And all rights do in fact extend from government.

So why are you bringing non-existent irrelevancies into the discussion?

[dsummoner]

So, no it doesn't.

And all rights do in fact extend from government.

So why are you bringing non-existent irrelevancies into the discussion?

Incorrect. All rights extend from might (it may be the government that holds it or non-government individuals that hold it and it varies with both place and time). A basis that is non-existent in actuality and yet serves as a basis for a particular document in question becomes very relevant when one is arguing that the document itself is a basis upon which to predicate an argument for the discussion in question. It becomes irrelevant if the argument was 'the government is going to do what it wants because it has the most might' (that would be the actuality but would also preclude one from using a particular document as the basis). Only a select few will make this argument. Most will try (and fail) to justify it based on other grounds.

[georjec2]

Just like controlling the speech of [insert Libbie totem pole of oppressed group member here] doesn't equal a free speech ban...

What is it about fascist government boot licking Libbies that they can't seem to grasp the concept of fundamental individual rights?

Another LSD induced question.