Professor Rush "We gotta redefine smart"

[firstandten]

Understood.

Fringe actors are a cost of our freedom in America. Better ideas and arguments should continue to be heard, so that this freedom may always be afforded to all.

Where however is the line between free speech and the exchange of legit ideas, and yelling fire in a crowded theatre when there is none?

You can make an argument that some of this right wing rabble represents the latter.

[rb336]

Exceptionalism is possible only when individual liberty is a priority of high order. It is not amongst liberals/socialists, like Obama.

exceptionalism is an empty, meaningless concept, esp. when you define "liberty" as narrowly as Bats does

[vetalalumni]

Where however is the line between free speech and the exchange of legit ideas, and yelling fire in a crowded theatre when there is none?

You can make an argument that some of this right wing rabble represents the latter.

A profound dilemna indeed! In erring on the side of caution, lean toward freedom of speech at all times. This is very much a part of American exceptionalism alluded to previously in this thread. Not simply vivid acts of sincerity or exuberance. Rather the distinct inner beauty of the America all of the citizens can believe in.

[Detroitej72]

Exceptionalism is possible only when individual liberty is a priority of high order. It is not amongst liberals/socialists, like Obama.

So, do you support someone encoraging the killing of a president to find out if they are the anti-christ?

[ccbatson]

Did I say that I supported that?

I support the right of an individual to express themselves, and the right of an individual to pay attention to whatever they choos to pay attention to [[or not).

[Detroitej72]

Encouraging the killing of a president to find out if he's the anti-christ is the same as yelling fire in a crowded theater.

No matter how you try to spin it, it is wrong. Free speach is not allowed in this case.

[firstandten]

A profound dilemna indeed! In erring on the side of caution, lean toward freedom of speech at all times. This is very much a part of American exceptionalism alluded to previously in this thread. Not simply vivid acts of sincerity or exuberance. Rather the distinct inner beauty of the America all of the citizens can believe in.

Thinking about what you said I, would have to agree that when in doubt its better to lean toward freedom of speech. I am really torn and ambivalent on the concept of American exceptionalism. I see both the ideas that it makes us aspire too and the realities and problems we face when american exceptionalism turns into Jingoism.

[ccbatson]

Jingoism? Liberty can't become jingoistic.

[vetalalumni]

I am really torn and ambivalent on the concept of American exceptionalism.

A natural, somber reaction.

Let me say what I might say to myself when torn in this manner:

Never let the painful, uncomfortable realities totally dissuade you. Get a level-set of the playing field, flaws and all, and decide what role you want to play. This is part of your liberty, freedom, and happiness. Focus on productivity and goals, as opposed to snide, cutting remarks, or revenge etc...

I see both the ideas that it makes us aspire too and the realities and problems we face when american exceptionalism turns into Jingoism.

Unchecked, jingoism can easily be like the athlete prematurely celebrating while the opposition scores. That athlete might be considered pitiful, immature, or even ignorant. Addressing stubborn myopia, wherever it is found, can help keep jingoism in check. This can be challenging because many are happily myopic.

[ccbatson]

That is why it is not a matter of Jingoism....it could be the Republic of Timbuckto with a few thousand citizens...so long as individual liberty is the core and driving principle, they would be exceptional.

[rb336]

Jingoism? Liberty can't become jingoistic.

no, but using an extremely narrow definition of liberty, as you do, can become jingoistic

[ccbatson]

Contradict yourself often Rb? "no", but then yes for the same concept. Bad form.

[Detroitej72]

I believe Somalia would be heaven for you. No government interference, no taxes - you can do whatever you want. Such "liberty", such "freedom"!

Just as long as you have enough guns and artillery to defend and crush the oposition!

[rb336]

Contradict yourself often Rb? "no", but then yes for the same concept. Bad form.

no contradiction. the difference:

liberty - not jingoistic

USING an extremely narrow definition - can be jingoistic

one is a thing, the other is a usage

[ccbatson]

So...2+2 doesn't equal 7, but if you use a broad definition [[???) it can....gotcha.

[rb336]

So...2+2 doesn't equal 7, but if you use a broad definition [[???) it can....gotcha.

once again, you seem almost incapable of grasping any idea that challenges your incredibly narrow, closed-minded ideology

[Big Dog]

Analyzing ccbatson posts, he or she does certainly have a narrow mind.

[rb336]

Dogma of any sort is a disease. it is not that people are narrow-minded, but that their ideologies are so entrenched that he either cannot see beyond it or chooses not to.

Bats - overall he seems an intelligent, decent person when you can seperate him from his randisms

[ccbatson]

Funny how a simple logical analogy short circuits liberals, isn't it?

[rb336]

Funny how a simple logical analogy short circuits liberals, isn't it?

it might be an interesting experiment. too bad you have never posted anything that even approches a logical argument. all you do is spew ideologically based BS filled with logical fallacies and rhetorical errors

[ccbatson]

Selective memory is getting the better of you Rb. Countless times I have spelled out the syllogistic logic/illogic of various points of discussion here.

[vetalalumni]

Did Sarah Palin redefine smart today? --> http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...ol-the-people/

[Blarf]

Sarah Palin is a moron. If she's considered a conservative, than she's an embarrassment to conservatism.

I'd still do her though.

[jams]

syllogism [sil‐ŏ‐jizm], a form of logical argument that derives a conclusion from two propositions [[‘premises’) sharing a common term, usually in this form: all x and y [[major premise); z is x [[minor premise); therefore z is y [[conclusion). For example: all poets are alcoholics; Jane isapoet; therefore Jane is an alcoholic. In this deductive logic, the conclusion is of course reliable only if both premises are true. Syllogistic reasoning was cultivated in medieval scholasticism, and is sometimes found in Chaucer and Shakespeare.

http://www.answers.com/topic/syllogism

[ghettopalmetto]

Dear Gov. Palin:

Economics 101 is microeconomics. The recession and ensuing stimulus are concerns of macroeconomics.

Please tell us exactly what the federal government has told you that you can/can't do.