Pages

Tuesday, October 20, 2009

US Sponsors Plan to Restrict Free Speech

Goodness knows what I have, but that's why I'm not posting. See you on Wednesday, hopefully.

Meanwhile, I HIGHLY recommend that you read US Sponsors Plan to Restrict Free Speech. This affects us all.

28 comments:

Gary Baker said...

Ms. Saurly,

I hope that you are feeling better much soon and will keep you in my prayers. As for the part about free speech, I'm afraid it comes as no surprise. That's part of what fascists do.

The Lazy Iguana said...

I have been living off DayQuil and powdered aspirin.

As for World Net Daily - they are about as credible as PETA. Maybe even less so. In the case of PETA, at least we know animals actually do exist. So part of what they say is based in fact.

Three Score and Ten or more said...

Best wishes. I hope you feel better soon.

Daniel Hoffmann-Gill said...

This is why I stopped reading Saur, linking to World Net Daily stories that just aren't true; this from the site that enabled many of the birther myths.

Gary Baker said...

Daniel,

I'm curious - Is there any evidence that the story is false?

Daniel Hoffmann-Gill said...

Yes, first of all World Net Daily is not a good source for news, esp. news that isn't bias, so by all means the resolution is true but its impact is not how the stupid article in the stupid source describes.

First off, its not a law or with any binding on anyone, second the purpose of it is, in theory, a good one, to deplore attacks on religion.

The reason conservative bile agencies like WND hate it is that it is an effort by Obama to reach out to Muslim countries and the constant attacks that their faith is placed under by bigots that don't know any better.

I actually don't agree with it, I can't stand religion and don't feel it is immune for criticism but that doesn't mean I fall for right-wing nonsense machines spewing lies.

Also, you don't seem to know what a fascist is, since you are bandying it around without due care.

In summary then, no ones free speech is under threat, you can go back to fighting the concept of healthcare for all.

Gary Baker said...

Translation: You have no evidence that the story is false. You don't like source, so that is sufficient. You also either have no knowledge of the history of how such treaties are applied, or they are applied to your taste, since the description in the article does give a reasonable account. You don't like the word fascist, but you are either ignorant or dishonest when you say that I am "bandying" it about incorrectly. Considering how the Obama administration is already working to curtail release of information on on-going legislation, engaging in propaganda, and working to take control of both pay and production, the term is quite accurate. In short, you demonstrate that you either are ignorant of the lies and history of the methods the current administration is using, or you approve and therefore consider them justified. In fact, I think the one thing that you convey honestly and with complete accuracy is your antipathy toward religion, no doubt inspired by people of your intellectual level. I guess that covers it.

Daniel Hoffmann-Gill said...

Gary, I hope translation is not your line of work as you are really bad at it.

It's not about me not liking the source, it is about the source being globally acknowledged as a poor one.

It's also not about me not liking the story itself, it is about the story being false, the resolution does not restrict free speech at all because it is not law and NEVER will be and it does not include any elements that repres free speech anywhere, also, the basic principle of the resolution is that "any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence." is wrong.

Do you disagree with this?

Also, as I'm sure you know, the person who falsely presumes that it "is not about free speech at all but about installing international precedents to stifle any criticism of Islam." is basing that on their own feeble personal opinion and prejudice with no shred of evidence and a desire to scaremonger so that people like you Gary and Saur, fall for it.

Also they are from the Heritage Foundation, which is in itself a right-wing conservative think tank, not the best place to get objective comment but then again WND has no interest in objective comment, just more hot button right-wing bigotry against Islam.

Don't get me wrong, I can't stand Islam as much as I can't stand Christianity or any other daft cult but the sheer volume of ignorance you're revealing on the issue at hand and the falling for the tripe you're being pushed with no critical interrogation speaks volumes.

I can sense that your idiotic use of the word fascist is based on your terrible partizan attitude towards Obama, which is a shame, you are closed minded to the actual issue at hand and falling for a scaremongering trick to play on your loathing of Islam.

Just because the GOP are out of power, you need to take it with a sense of decency and, dare I say, be Christian about it, rather than a deluded sack of repressed hatred.

I hope your silly God will forgive you.

Gary Baker said...

Summing up again: You still have no evidence against the story, so you try to discredit the source, with equal lack of evidence.

BTW - You are correct. I am not in the business of translation except at the edges. I am an engineer. I make my living by examining facts, making determinations, and providing recommendations and solutions, again, based on facts. As such, I need to be able to evaluate what constitutes evidence and what constitutes opinion, or my family doesn't eat.

If you would like to engage in a serious conversation based on facts, I am more than willing. For example, being a foreigner, you might be unaware of the nature of our Constitutional government in that treaties ratified from international organizations carry the weight of Constitutional law. Therefore, a treaty ratified by the Senate affecting free speech would be considered a competing right that could be used to limit our current first amendment rights. A similar situation exists in Canada. Supposedly, they have a legal guarantee of free expression analogous to our first amendment. However, when they passed a law forbidding hate speech against homosexuals, one that had a specific exemption for religious speech, the Canadian government used that as a hammer to stifle free speech and religion through their poorly named human rights council. Additionally, I believe that if you read up on the general description of Fascism, I am using the word with great justification. The only thing missing from the current Obama/Liberal form of fascism is rabid nationalism. The rest of it (spread of propaganda, stifling of dissent, seizing government control of privately held assets) is all there.

And your hope is justified. My God, has indeed, forgiven me, and I kneel in grateful awe of Him.

Daniel Hoffmann-Gill said...

Gary:

Your personal bias and desperate desire to see even made up negative stories about Obama given air speaks volumes about you.

I've tried to make this clear but your head is buried in the sand. Final stab in the dark with you...

1) WND is a well known conservative news outlet that suffers from terrible bias and approaches everything through a lens of a conservative right-wing agenda. It also on record as helping back other terrible lies about Obama and present them as news.

Do you deny this? If you do then really there is no point discussing this because you are so utterly oblivious to the facts that I may as well debate a side boob.

2) Bearing in mind the dubious nature of the source itself, I stress again that this resolution WILL NEVER BE A LAW ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD and neither is it intended to be such. Read the resolution on the UN website, read the way a real news agency has reported it here and understand that this resolution will change nothing.

Clearly, that is not the agenda of WND, which in turn then quotes from another conservative right-wing source for their opinion in order to scare people like you and Saur into thinking that First Amendment rights are ebing sold down the river.

Do you disagree with this and if so what evidence have you for this disagreement?

I am more than aware that under the First Amendment, the US has no legislation to deal with hate speech against anyone, only in circumstances of defamation and an incitement to riot, as well as threat of imminant violence, which is a crime in US law.

On a personal note, you make a big point of listing how you base things on facts but your profile clearly marks you out as a conservative Christian, which reflects well upon your deductive powers of reason if you believe in what amounts to fairies and you are willing to kneeel before them.

"being a foreigner"

Yes, I am not American but I've spent months there and driven across the damn thing, read the Constitution, know the Presidents off by heart as to when who served and did what, never mind a constant study into the political set-up and reading many texts on the exceptional qualities of the US and its people.

I am more than aware of how it works, it is YOU that fails to grasp that THIS WILL NEVER BE LAW ANYWHERE because it is a resolution, not legislation, for all intents and purposes, it is window dressing.

Then you go off into a brief rant on homophobia, speaks volumes about you, no doubt you hate the gays cuz the Bible told you so and then you drag Canada in...

WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT CANADA!

And do you seriously think that Obama's government is fascist? Seriously?

Your reputation as an intelligent human with a sound mind and body is at stake here, it really is. Hence my complete disbelief that you know what fascsim is and more importantly, you and others like you that have used imagery of Fascism and in turn Hitler, disrespect those that have actually lived and suffered under fascist regimes based only on your own myopic political ignorance.

"The rest of it (spread of propaganda, stifling of dissent, seizing government control of privately held assets) is all there."

I can't believe this, I know SOME Americans are thick, delusional, scared sheep running to the hills because a black man is in charge but those few lines damn you as an utter idiot and you use them with no sense of irony at all after the 8 years of Bush where these things were actually done.

For the record, Bush wasn't a fascist either.

And yet somehow, you manage to tarry all of this hateful bullshit with your alleged faith as a Christian.

Don't make me laugh, you're not a Christian, your behaviour has no shred of Christianity in it.

Gary Baker said...

Daniel,

1.) WND is a well known conservative news outlet that suffers from terrible bias and approaches everything through a lens of a conservative right-wing agenda. It also on record as helping back other terrible lies about Obama and present them as news. Do you deny this?"

These are very general statements. Please give me some specifics that back them up. Based on what I have heard, I think it is fair to say that WND leans more right than left. That is not the issue. The issue is can you give me some verifiable instances where this has lead to false reporting. I know for a fact that the Obama administration has made a great many false statements with everything from the health care proposals to their part in the current economic crisis. Bias is only an issue if it affects the factuality of reporting. Examples, please.

2) "understand that this resolution will change nothing."

Your argument is illogical. No pushes for a resolution that will change nothing. A marvelous example is hate-crime's laws. Theoretically, they do not grant any special protections to other groups. If that were the case, special groups would not push so hard for them. Clearly, they expect to be able to get mileage out of them.

"Do you disagree with this and if so what evidence have you for this disagreement."

The evidence is the history cited. Britain is a marvelous example of how laws that nominally "guarantee" the rights of everyone in theory are used to restrict the rights of others in practice. Blogs on Britain are full of cases where substantive matters are completely brushed aside as liberals ignore facts and simply label their opponents racist, sexist, homophobe, etc.

"hen you go off into a brief rant on homophobia, speaks volumes about you, no doubt you hate the gays cuz the Bible "

You prove my point wonderfully. Thank you. You and your ilk also seem to think that rhetoric can be substituted for evidence. For example:

"And do you seriously think that Obama's government is fascist?"

A rhetorical response that addresses none of the substantial charges I made. For example, like fascists, the Obama administration is taking over ownership and governance of private assets. Like fascists, the Obama administration is moving to marginalize and radicalize opposing viewpoints. Like fascists, the Obama administration is using threats and intimidation to pressure businesses into going along. Like fascists, the Obama adminstration is spreading false information about the legislation currently under consideration. Like fascists, the Obama administration is keeping race and class hatred alive to pit potential opposition groups against each other. If it looks like a duck, and it walks like a duck, and it wears a schwastika...

"but your profile clearly marks you out as a conservative Christian, which reflects well upon your deductive powers of reason if you believe in what amounts to fairies and you are willing to kneeel before them."

Again, long on insult, short on logic.

"Don't make me laugh, you're not a Christian, your behaviour has no shred of Christianity in it."

Ah yes, the incredible liberal arrogance. "I know what you believe far better than you do." No, you don't.

Not that it isn't fun thrashing you at logical commentary, but wouldn't you at least like to try debating even a single point on substance. I know that means you might have to turn in your union card, but give it a shot.

Daniel Hoffmann-Gill said...

I see this circular discussion goes on?

It would be best to embrace your clouded world view as just that and to stop confusing your prejudiced opinion with hard fact.

1) No, they are not general statements, they are very clear ones Gary and I asked you if you refuse to accept them. It is very clear, stop ducking and either confirm what I fear which is that you see WND as a good source of accurate and unbias news.

In doing so you expose yourself for what you are, not a man of reason but someone with an agenda, a need to see evidence of Obama's terrible regime wherever you look because anything otherwise would challenge your world view too much.

You ask for specifics knowing full well that as I provide you with a raft of false and negative articles utilised by this awful 'news' outlet, you will not accept them as evidence, pointless stuff really because you agree with the lies spread by news outlets like this and others.

But, for the record, a list of WND errors and missteps can be found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WorldNetDaily#Controversial_articles

Daniel Hoffmann-Gill said...

2) I've said this before and I'll say it again, you do not understand what a resolution is, so thus try and claim my argument is "illogical".

"No pushes for a resolution that will change nothing."

Yes they do because all UN resolutions are non-binding, they are political window dressing, political techniques to make certain points, in this case that religious intolerance is not a good idea.

Please read articles 10 and 14 of the UN Chartr which mark such things out as recommendations.

Seriously Gary, you need to learn more about what you're discussing before you wade in, so to make the same point again, in the vain hope you'll get it, as you fail to see it because you are blind with prejudice:

THIS WILL NEVER BE LAW ANYWHERE.

So once you accept this you have to see the WND story as scaremongering of the highest order (as is nearly all of their 'news'), scare mongering you and Saur have fallen for in your desire to see negative in the Obama administration.

Daniel Hoffmann-Gill said...

I have no idea why, after drawing in Canada to your sprawling and desperate argument, you try and draw in the UK. Please, you know nothing of the UN never mind the UK and in your despereate trawl to try and label the current US administration as something evil, you have to fall about yourself finding reference points.

Stick to the argument, which is: WND is a terrible source for real news and that the story that they created is pure and terrible fiction to wind-up the ever myopic right-wing base of idiots (you).

And I repeat: do you seriously think that Obama's government is fascist?

I care little for your word games, do you or do you not? I get from your long winded and hilariously bad answert that you do and thankfully you can be confirmed as a total baffoon.

How can you expect me to debate with someone who thinks that the Obama administration is fascist?

I find it funny how in your desperate and pathetic effort to label Obama as a fascist you use the idea of the government taking ownership and governance of private assets. I presume by this you mean healthcare?

I also presume you know this isn't happening and that like this tale, you have fallen for more lies?

You do know the US government owns and runs many things very well?

Doesn't mean it is socialist, just means governments do many things better than private sector.

"Like fascists, the Obama administration is moving to marginalize and radicalize opposing viewpoints."

This is not a fascist trait you idiot, good grief you're thick and to be clear, you confuse your bias opinion with fact. This is not happening and yet again without irony you fail to see that is what Bush did.

"Like fascists, the Obama administration is using threats and intimidation to pressure businesses into going along."

Evidence please for this lie and once again this is not fascist.

"Like fascists, the Obama adminstration is spreading false information about the legislation currently under consideration."

Evidence please and again, none of these traits are fascists, you really don't know what it means do you?

"the Obama administration is keeping race and class hatred alive to pit potential opposition groups against each other."

Lie and no evidence for this and also, you are again confusing what fascism is.

You then, in a fit of idiotic pique, make out that the Obama adminstration "wears a schwastika", you poor, pathetic man, failing to see how crass and insulting that it. I lost many family members at the hands of those that wore swastikas you dolt, don't demean such things with your base ignorance and hyperbole.

You need to take a breath and see that you are so full of hate based on your deep set bigotry and prejudice, you can't see the wood for the trees.

"Again, long on insult, short on logic."

Says the man who believes in fairies? You offer no counter argument, no debate, just ducking out.

"Not that it isn't fun thrashing you at logical commentary,"

I know you're deluded poor child, but really, you need to hold yourself together, your ignorance and prejudice and political lack of knowledge is embarassing you. You also have no real sense of personal perception and what is happening here.

It is you that fails to debate, it is you that ducks questions, it is you that does not have one clue what you are talking about because your arguments, ideas and indeed life is built on lies, delusion and ignorance.

Have a nice day now!

Gary Baker said...

"But, for the record, a list of WND errors and missteps can be found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WorldNetDaily#Controversial_articles"

There's a saying that even a stopped clock is right twice a day. Your charges of bias are irrelevant to the discussion. If they are correct in this matter, and you have provided no evidence that they are not, then it matters not how biased they are or have been in the past. Truth stands on its own regardless of the source. Even you probably tell the truth sometimes, don't you?

"THIS WILL NEVER BE LAW ANYWHERE."

Unless your crystal ball is working a lot better than mine, I hardly think you could support such a claim. Often, the only thing required for something to be treated as "law" is to be accepted as a precedent for something. For example, when the executive order was issued for "Affirmative Action" its purpose was to guarantee non-discrimination. At the time, some were afraid that it would be used to establish racial quotas and preferences. They were told that was ridiculous. As it turns out, the people who claimed that it would be used for preferences and quotas were correct. At first such set-asides were informal policies that eventually became legally upheld law.

Your charges of "scaremongering" would be a lot more convincing if liberals in general did not have a historical record of passing laws and resolutions with one purpose stated and immediately changing the purpose to suit their agenda and infringe on the rights of others. I assure you, I am quite well versed in the appropriate history.

""How can you expect me to debate with someone who thinks that the Obama administration is fascist?"

I honestly don't. Debate is for rational people who employ logical points, not empty rhetoric. I do like to give a person every chance, however.

Fascism

1. A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.
2. A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government.


"I find it funny how in your desperate and pathetic effort to label Obama as a fascist you use the idea of the government taking ownership and governance of private assets. I presume by this you mean healthcare?"

Healthcare, and automobile companies, and insurance companies, and dictating corporate pay for executives, etc.

"You do know the US government owns and runs many things very well?"

With the likely exception of the military, pretty much everything the government runs is run less efficiently than its private sector counterpart.

Gary Baker said...

Except for the fact that the Obama Justice Department dropped a voter intimidation case where they had videos of members of the black panther party intimidating white voters, and the frequent times Obama brought race into the campaign as an issue, and the still frequent times where his supporters claim that he is being opposed on race, and he appoints an attorney general that accuses Americans of being cowards with regards to race, and...well, you get the idea.

"Doesn't mean it is socialist, just means governments do many things better than private sector."

You really are ignorant, aren't you? News flash - that pretty much is the definition of socialist, and I challenge you to give me three things that are run by the government that have private sector counterparts where the government does it better, cheaper, or more efficiently. Not medicine certainly. I had a lot of that in the military. Not education. Not services. Private is better if at all possible.

""Like fascists, the Obama adminstration is spreading false information about the legislation currently under consideration."

Evidence please and again, none of these traits are fascists, you really don't know what it means do you?"

Go to the White House website and look at all the things that the Obama administration promises government health care will do (allow you to keep your own doctor, not involve rationing, allow people to keep their own health insurance if they desire, etc.) Then go on line and find details of the bills now under consideration in the legislature. Pro-pa-gan-da. He also operated a website for a while urging people to turn in others who were spreading "misinformation" about health care which is very odd considering that he was chief broker of misinformation. He has also stated that doctors support his health care plan when approximately 70% of doctors do not, etc.

The part about the schwastika was facetious. If you didn't get that in context, I apologize for employing too much subtlety for you.

I'll not bother to comment on the rest of your words. I think I commented on everything that had a hint of substance. I read often on the British websites that your public education system is in great trouble. Looking at the arguments that you appear to feel are reasoned, I see this is the case. Keep trying. Remember - twice a day.

Daniel Hoffmann-Gill said...

As I predicted, evidence is provided and all you can do is further show your personal prejudice, that you refuse to accept, hiding behind some fake idea of reason that you show no use of.

"Your charges of bias are irrelevant to the discussion."

No they are not, they are crucial for assessing any source of any story and as I pointed out, the story is of a dubious nature in itself, this coupled with who the course of the story is equals, clearly unless you are an idiot, a negation of the story itself as representing anything other than more bias from a silly 'news' website that likes to wind-up its base.

"If they are correct in this matter, and you have provided no evidence that they are not,"

Yes I have, time and time again but you refuse to see it. How can it not be evidence enough when I have pointed out that UN resolutions such as this are not law, anywhere and never have been, the prime evidence is that WND is trying to make out this will happen when it never will in order to scare and spread false information, against a man and administration it has little care for.

Your blindness to this is quite shocking, so close minded!

"Unless your crystal ball is working a lot better than mine, I hardly think you could support such a claim."

I did, in black and white you ignorant man, stating clearly that resoltuions such as this never become law anywhere.

All you do Gary Baker is bury your silly little head in the sand and fight this pissy little corner of the Internet for dear life because you know that your ideology is sinking.

I'm glad you then offer some defining terms for fascism because they highlight how wrong you are and possibly deluded, to think that the US is anywhere near such a situation.

America does not have centralization of authority, or a dictator, or stringent socioeconomic controls, or suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, or a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.

Anyone that thinks that is not living in the real world.

As for what you consider to be the signs of fascism in the US, is that it? Is that really all it takes in your desperate partizan search to label a government fascist?

The Patriot Act didn't do it for you but an attempt to give the US a civilised healthcare system and the private sector car crash of the car industry does?

"With the likely exception of the military, pretty much everything the government runs is run less efficiently than its private sector counterpart."

Not true at all, see Medicare and Medicaid's effiency and value for money, never mind all the other government run services. You are clearly a free trade obsessive, falling for Milton Freidman style economics.

Daniel Hoffmann-Gill said...

Black Panthers intimidating white voters?

Give me a fucking break you daft racist, now it all comes out, some massive black conspiracy! I've heard it all now!

This is just what happened when Clinton was in, right-wing conservative idiots trying to find any smattering of something to get their fangs into.

Pathetic!

Stick to the issue here, don't use this as an excuse to expose yourself anymore.

You ask for a list of things that the US government runs well:

Well I've already pointed out that in terms of value for money and efficiency, government healthcare currently does better than private.

They also do a pretty good job of the postal service and the fire service to name but two. It's odd how government run services such as the police are fire service are fine, no profit to be had there but profit in people's health: YES WE CAN!

All the things the Obama government says is true you nutjob, how an earth can you disprove it, let me guess, WND told you something different or your GOP congressperson?

You are so riddled with hate, you are blind to the truth. When I ask for evidence I mean just that, not your opinion you fool.

You should apologise for being a cunt Gary and being facetious about swastikas, even on that issue you can't be a man an apologise correctly for saying a deeply offensive thing, you have to cling on to your bigotry even as it drowns you.

And as for the British education system, considring it out performs the US education system, I'd ease off on telling me how bad it is, you massive tit.

Gary Baker said...

"the story is of a dubious nature in itself, this coupled with who the course of the story is equals"

On the contrary, considering the actions the Obama administration has taken, its willingness to suppress information counter to its purpose, and the history of modern liberalism using the legal system the story is quite plausible. Based on that, you need something more than your statement that the reporting organization is biased to negate the points.


"the story is of a dubious nature in itself, this coupled with who the course of the story is equals"

And I gave you a perfectly applicable example of how resolutions such as this tend to find their way into law. My reporting of reality trumps your assertion of opinion.

"dear life because you know that your ideology is sinking."

My ideology is irrelevant. My country's economy is sinking and rather than try to recover it, our current government is pursuing a line of action that will worsen it as well as reduce individual liberty and consolidate government power.

"America does not have centralization of authority, or a dictator, or stringent socioeconomic controls, or suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, or a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism."

Perhaps not compared to Britain. Compared to what Americans generally expect, I disagree.

"Is that really all it takes in your desperate partizan search to label a government fascist?"

Generally, when a government meets a majority of the definition and is striving for more, yes, I believe that is sufficient. Right now, most of the Constitutional protections are still in effect. The administration and Congress are working to change that. To that end, the US is not yet a fascist country. That does not change the fact that many in the government are working to make it so.

"Not true at all, see Medicare and Medicaid's effiency and value for money, never mind all the other government run services."

I have. The fraud is rampant and the efficiency is terrible. The only reason they present the illusion of low cost is that the government has the ability to set reimbursement rates, which is why fewer and fewer physicians can afford to accept medicaid and medicare. Government run health care does not reduce the cost. It simply refuses to pay the cost. That's the reason that Great Britain has 80+ year old citizens left to die unattended in their beds because no one has checked in on them in days and premature babies born below a certain term will be left to expire with no care provided.

Daniel Hoffmann-Gill said...

This is running away now, the key point is and remains that WND is not a good source for accurate analysis of the Obama adminstration, as is proved with the story Saur linked to which is untrue and poorly researched backed up with a quote from someone who had nothing to do with it and is in turn from a right-wing conservative agency.

Daniel Hoffmann-Gill said...

And to be clear, you have not provided any evidence of UN General Assembly Resolutions that were passed into US law and have impinged upon the constitution.

Do keep up Gary, your desperation to be somehow right, even though on this tiny issue it is impossible for you to be, is becoming painful to watch.

Gary Baker said...

"Black Panthers intimidating white voters?"

Why yes, as detailed:

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/1964907/black_panthers_intimidate_white_voters_at_polls/

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=80036

"Well I've already pointed out that in terms of value for money and efficiency, government healthcare currently does better than private."

You have, and you are incorrect. I say that as someone who has experienced both government and private healthcare in the US and has studied the issue.

"They also do a pretty good job of the postal service and the fire service to name but two."

Which are also reasonably impossible for non-government agencies to do, certainly with regards to the fire department. On the postal front, however, the government is far less efficient. Take a look at:

http://mises.org/story/3646

The post office has been in constant financial trouble. The only thing that keeps them going is ever increasing subsidies, and this while the actual share of the mail traffic they handle is decreasing. The moral: We can! (but not if we are the government.)

I'll ignore your personal comments for the sake of time. As for the US ed system, I know that it is going down, mostly because it is controlled by the government, the unions, and the liberals (which is redundant these days). I still have hope that it will rebound to world class excellence.

Daniel Hoffmann-Gill said...

Gary, your desperate efforts to divert this off topic do nothing for the fact that WND is not a reliable source of impartial accurate news and never will be and the stroy in question, you were eager to lap up like the crazed anti-Obama loon you are, is a falsehood.

You can blather all you want about 6 Black Panthers intimidating voters as if that somehow reflects how evil the Obama administration is; whilst all the while no doubt ignoring the huge infringements in law, justice and human rights that the Bush administration carried out in its awful 8 years of fiscal and social ruin.

Gary Baker said...

"You can blather all you want"

No, I'll leave that up to you. I'm still waiting for you to show some logical support for most any of your arguments, though hope has grown quite dim. It doesn't seem much worth the time anymore. I'll keep monitoring this string from time to time on the off chance that you present something close to a reasonable argument. If not, I'll let you have the last rant.

Daniel Hoffmann-Gill said...

As I've said endlessly, I have provided a raft of evidence, all of which, as it contradicts your prejudice, you've ignored.

In summary, WND is not a reliable source as it suffers from servere right-wing conservative bias. Best shown by it quoting someone else from a right-wing conservative think tank.

Secondly, the story is false, in that this resolution will never be law anywhere in the world and is not intended to do such a thing; it was a political act by Obama to show good will to (shock horror) the Islamic world. Something that no doubt upsets you as you are a prejudiced bigot.

This is covered in UN Articles 10 and 14 as I have already said, not your bigotry but how UN resolutions work.

Best you walk away now Gary, before this gets worse for you.

Dr. Deb said...

Get well. I got the hooey booey flooey too.

Bryan said...

I for one am glad to see a WND article posted by you, Saur.

Gary: Bravo!

Daniel Hoffmann-Gill said...

Why Bryan?

Because you are also a prejudiced conservative, still gripped by the pain of defeat?

Seriously, it's not a news source one goes about trumpeting allegiance to like it's a football team.