Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[mainiac]

Dude, Paul Ryan slips the constitution some tongue at least once and night and usually in the morning too.

[smjjames]

The argument that the Left are the modern defenders of freedom of speech is kind of laughable as well. Protip: neither party gives more than lip service to the Constitution. 

Except for the second amendment when it comes to Republicans (at least the ones controlled by the gun lobby).

And lol maniac.

[Rolan7]

Really?  Okay.  Who came up with all these "decency" laws, forced religious iconography onto our money and pledge and schools, and is doing a damn good job at tearing down net neutrality?
Who said that "You're with us or against us?"  And backed that up with mob violence?

I'm not saying Republicans don't do bad things.

Jee thanks for NOT saying something.  I didn't say you did say that - isn't this productive?  I'll get back to this.

What have the Democrats done to destroy free speech?

Off the top of my head.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_speech_zone#History
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_machine#Political_machines_in_the_United_States

Because prior to 1988, protesters were always allowed to scream over politicians /s
And just look at the 2016 RNC.
But maybe the Democrats do participate in the same thing the Republicans do, there, holding speeches in controlled areas.
...Which isn't censorship AT ALL, by the way!  No one is being silenced!  They just aren't allowed to steal someone else's paid venue.
That's almost worse logic than "Lobbyists need to be able to buy politicians because uh uh free speech"

Complaining about hateful demagogues isn't CENSORING them, it's complaining.
And confused regressives, largely minors, don't represent us either.

Yet the Klan and Stormfronters represent "the right?"

I really don't blame you, but I've never said that.
In fact I often get shit on for objecting to such arguments.  But I don't get *censored*.

It's easy to vilify any group by only quoting their most extreme, self-identifying "members".
The true measure of a group is what it does by consensus, when in power.

By which measure, yeah, conservatives have done some really heinous shit and are continuing to do so.  But to your credit, you "aren't saying they haven't".

You're not admitting that there's anything wrong with planting the Judeo-Christian God on the dollar to rally against some dem socialists, either.  But at least you aren't not saying that!

Socialist governments clamped down on free speech, sure, but so did the fascists.  We liberals aren't responsible for any of that, particularly since we're basically "moderate" compared to the rest of the civilized world.

Everyone thinks they're the moderates. How is it that you hold "the right" responsible for their extremist wings while "the left" is blameless?

Screw that moral ambiguity, I'm simply comparing us against literally the rest of the civilized world.  Even on issues I'm Right on, we're Right.  On other issues, we're slightly right of center.  You're welcome to claim the rest of the world is wrong, but I'm not saying what you said.

[Folly]

it's clear that, factually, he has committed a string of sex attacks

These may seem like clear facts to someone who approaches every new piece of evidence dead-set on using it to incriminate Trump. But to an objective observer, it's clear that many of these 'facts' are nothing more than shoddy supposition. You don't care about justice, you just want to see Trump burn. Frankly, it's a disgrace to the real victims of sexual assault to be associated with this type of farce.

[Rolan7]

Oh yeah it's not clear he's actually done it, there's a good chance he's just a sad lying braggart.
Pathetic until proven guilty.

[Baffler]

-snip-

Okay,

Alienating wrongthinkers is something conservatives do, we're supposed to be better than that.

So if you aren't saying that only Republicans give people shit over ideology here, which is what I'm objecting to, what did you mean by this?

[smjjames]

-snip-

Okay,

Alienating wrongthinkers is something conservatives do, we're supposed to be better than that.

So if you aren't saying that only Republicans give people shit over ideology here, which is what I'm objecting to, what did you mean by this?

The case of Gallieilo and the Church trying to suppress his findings come to mind. At least I think that may be what rolan7 means because the favorite saying of the church against 'wrong'thinkers is 'heretic!!!!'

[Strife26]

The argument that the Left are the modern defenders of freedom of speech is kind of laughable as well. Protip: neither party gives more than lip service to the Constitution. 

Except for the second amendment when it comes to Republicans (at least the ones controlled by the gun lobby).

And lol maniac.

That's true. I'll give the Republicans credit for being generally amenable to the 2nd and the Democrats for being generally amenable to the voting related ammendments. Of course, this balances out and lets me continue to be horrified by how blase both of 'em are to the rest.

[Calidovi]

nothing like a bit of disdain for both sides to elevate your self worth, huh 

[mainiac]

how blase both of 'em are to the rest.

No troops are gonna quarter themselves in my house!

Okay lets do a rundown.  Let's start with the amendments that nobody gives a shit about because they aren't contentious:
3rd (quartering)
7th (trial by jury)
9th (rights not enumerated)
11th (sovereign immunity)
12th (election procedures)
13th (abolition of slavery)
16th (legalizes an income tax)
17th (direct election of Senators)
18th (prohibition-repealed)
19th (womens sufferage)
20th (election scheduling)
21th (repeal of prohibition)
22nd (presidential term limits)
23rd (DC electors in presidential elections)
24th (poll tax ban)
25th (presidential succession)
26th (lowered voting age)
27th (congressional salary rules)


Now the amendments that liberals are constantly fighting for:
1st (free religion, free speech, free press [also assembly and petition but those parts aren't contentious])
4th (warrants)
5th (rights of the accused)
6th (more rights of the accused)
8th (cruel and unusual punishment)
14th (equal protection)
15th (voting rights)

Now the amendments that conservatives are constantly fighting for:
2nd (guns)
10th (states rights)

I conclude two things from these lists.  Neither ideology has a big problem with "the other amendments".  It's the interpretation of a handful of amendments.  And in particular with liberals it's just two.  Liberals think that the interpretation of the 2nd amendment is too broad.  The 10th amendment is interesting because the liberal position is usually that the 10th amendment doesn't apply to powers granted by the commerce clause or the 16th amendment.  So it's not being "against the constitution", it's thinking that a part of the constitution applies that the states righters would rather ignore.

So it's a gross misrepresentation to say that liberals dont care about the constitution because of "the other amendments".  They think the interpretation of the 2nd amendment is too broad.  That's it.

[Reelya]

Arguably, free speech doesn't mean the blanket right to disrupt others who are having a political discussion.

The constitution protects the "the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." So what about protesters disrupting another political party's meeting? That would seem to actually breach the first-amendment rights of the people holding the meeting. Sure, the government can't curtail the rights of assembly and speech, but what about when those rights are in conflict between two groups? To pretend it's not happening is not a solution, therefore stipulating that rival groups protest/assemble separately is a good compromise.

[Sergarr]

Spoiler: "nuclear warming"??? (click to show/hide)

[Frumple]

Yeah, noticed that. Kinda' makes you wonder if the hypothesized coke's getting to him worse than previously. It'd make more sense than he does.

[mainiac]

It's extremely plausible that the republican party would nominate someone suffering from dementia and no one would notice.

[Culise]

It's extremely plausible that the republican party would nominate someone suffering from dementia and no one would notice.

If it hadn't been for the 22nd Amendment, I suspect they already would have, as we cheered Ronny Raygun onto his third term in 1988 instead of Bush.  Well, most of you in the US; we would have still voted Dukakis, I suspect.