Julio3000
<B>A Chip Off the Old Rock</B>
My perspective is that I expect a certain standard of factual accuracy from Mr. Facts and Data.
Is Free Speech Under Attack in this Country?
- Thread starter sturg33
- Start date
My perspective is that I expect a certain standard of factual accuracy from Mr. Facts and Data.
I think for the most part its pretty one sided and was absolutely started by the left (going after advertisers). Now unfortunately everyonr has adopted these awful tactics.
sturg33
I
Well good. Nothing I said was factually wrong.
And rather than say, "wow what a ****ty thing for my tolerant friends to.do."
Its "but but but the kid is not ACTUALLY the one behind the parody, probably!!! So doxing is fine"
sturg33
I
Of course.
It's a race to the bottom and the right will fight back with their own anti speech solutions.
For years our socialist friends dismiss the social speech censorship as it is technically legal.
And predictably, we have a republican trying to pass legislation to limit internet speech to combat this, and a democrat threatening to prosecute people for mocking her online.
Julio3000
<B>A Chip Off the Old Rock</B>
My perspective, continued, is that I notice a certain asymmetry in what you post about people getting harassed online, silenced, etc. To say nothing of being physically attacked or threatened, et al. If your point is a philosophical one about speech and not partisan, I wonder why you only ever seem to find one type of objectionable case?
How about this one?
[tw]1146160387852779521[/tw]
The activist in question had Proud Boys show up at her house late at night, after months of harassing phone calls to her and her family. Where do the free speech partisans stand here?
How about this one?
[tw]1146160387852779521[/tw]
The activist in question had Proud Boys show up at her house late at night, after months of harassing phone calls to her and her family. Where do the free speech partisans stand here?
Julio3000
<B>A Chip Off the Old Rock</B>
How about cement milkshakes & brain hemorrhages?
striker42
Well-known member
Detaining people endlessly has been a time honored Presidential tradition. Lincoln suspended the writ of habeus corpus and FDR put Japanese Americans into camps. You've had enemy combatants in Guantanamo stretching across three presidencies. Not saying this is okay, just saying it's something Presidents have been doing for centuries. It's a known threat.
As for the parade, that's exactly what I'm talking about. If Trump wants to do that, go right ahead. It's silly and a waste of money but I'll take silly and a waste of money over insidious growth of executive power.
All I'm saying is that it's an ambitious president who is competent enough to rapidly expand executive power that scares me. The growth of the executive branch is an existential threat to our system of government. Parades don't scare me. Legislating through executive order does.
Julio3000
<B>A Chip Off the Old Rock</B>
Ok, if those are “my friends”, who are your friends? Proud Boys? The Traditionalist Workers Party? The League of the South?
If you read my response to thethe, you’ll see that I think you’re right about doxxing this account. I’m just wondering why, as always, you present yourself as a defender of free speech, not as an ideological warrior, yet you only seem to post about one side of the political spectrum.
sturg33
I
Since I didnt inspect the milkshakes myself, I went by the report of the Portland Police
sturg33
I
The main reason you dont see this from me is I'm completely unaware of it.
Its shameful and disgusting
sturg33
I
Ahh yes I was wondering when the "you must be a nazi" accusation would come out
57Brave
Well-known member
Those were in times of war. Civil,II and MidEast Adventure
We could argue the rights and wrongs . Arguing devils advocate I am sure we can both see the reasoning . As flawed as it is
These are migrants --- asylum seekers.
Not enemy combatants or those that could be suspected as sympathizers of the other side
No, there is no precedence for this.
And please dont with the Obama deported ...
Like I said and hopefully you agree, there is no precedence for this
What evidence do you have that a POTUS Clinton II would expand the Executive ?
I really wish she'd go away just so we could quit hearing about all the things she "might" do
Recall it was the Kennedy's before the Clintons.
and before them the Rooooosevelts
Lets talk about an immigration policy that has no need for these detentions. And hopefully alleviates the horrors of the Central American drug wars
Last edited:
striker42
Well-known member
I would argue that war time shouldn't change the government's ability to lock you up indefinitely without trial. It's how well we stick to our principles in the difficult times that shows how important we consider them. That being said, this is more of a tangent.
The evidence I have that Clinton would expand the executive power is the fact that she's politically competent.
One constant in Presidents is their expansion of executive power. What the prior President's ceiling was is the new President's floor. It's one of the most predictable things in politics.
Clinton is a very competent politician. I have zero doubt that she has the political acumen to expand executive power and I see absolutely no reason why she wouldn't continue doing what virtually every president has done.
I think the reason she's more dangerous in expanding executive power than Trump is simply the fact that she'd be better at it.
57Brave
Well-known member
If HRC was politically competent she wouldn't have lost to a slum lord --- as a Senator she has no bills of note and she more or less inherited the nomination.
She was twice the front runner in January and blew it both times.
She was no more competent than Al Gore .
I likened her to Bush41. But with better hair
She was twice the front runner in January and blew it both times.
She was no more competent than Al Gore .
I likened her to Bush41. But with better hair
57Brave
Well-known member
here you go sturg --- something to get your teeth into..
https://www.instagram.com/p/BzbOzvjBa6F/?utm_source=ig_embed
https://www.instagram.com/p/BzbOzvjBa6F/?utm_source=ig_embed
striker42
Well-known member
Competent politician and electable are not the same thing.
Al Gore was an extremely competent politician as well. Both Hillary and Gore suffered from the same fault, a lack of personal charisma. It hurt their campaign efforts but did not prevent them from being extremely competent at knowing how the sausage is made or how to change the sausage making process.
Yes, society has gotten really sad and pathetic.
Lol...asylum seekers
sturg33
I
I think another meaningful distinction between the two is
There seems to be a very consistent defense, and frequently support of the actions when leftists invoke this behavior (see the outright Glee over the Ngo assault).