\GoBillsInDallas/ Posted November 25, 2012 Posted November 25, 2012 http://www.buffnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20121124/CITYANDREGION/121129563 “There are things said about the president that have never been said of any other president.”
Keukasmallies Posted November 25, 2012 Posted November 25, 2012 Ranks right up there with most of the recent political TV ads that disparaged whomever at the moment. While there may not be a mute button for yard signs, passersby can change their route, ignore the sign, learn to live with it, etc. Would there be the same degree of attention paid to a sign reading, "Obama's my President"? Nuff said.
Rob's House Posted November 25, 2012 Posted November 25, 2012 I think it's pretty obvious that "voters reniged" is racist (although if he were a more formidable racist he'd have spelled it with two Gs), but I have a problem with this distinction of "hate speech". This is another meme that's working it's way into the culture where the average Joe will, in a few years, just naturally assume that any speech deemed hateful is not protected. It always starts off with something virtually everyone can relate to. Like in European countries where it's illegal to say anything to minimize or question the Holocaust. Sounds reasonable unless you give it a scintilla of thought, after which it becomes painfully obvious that you just outlawed any discussion or analsysis of the Holocaust and the history surrounding it. Part of freedom is allowing others to say things you don't want to hear, and you best be really damn careful about shutting them up, because to do so opens the door to shutting you up as well.
KD in CA Posted November 25, 2012 Posted November 25, 2012 The entire concept of "hate speech" is nothing but a glaring example of ignorance and narrow-mindedness, and brought to us by the same people who love to put those labels on others. The idea that 'racist speech' is somehow not protected as free speech should give people chills, but instead the morons just cheer the continued erosion of personal liberty.
TakeYouToTasker Posted November 26, 2012 Posted November 26, 2012 Modern liberalism doesn't believe in freedom. It never has. Instead it holds dear the basic tenants of control, and uses freedom against freedom lovers to obtain it.
Adam Posted November 26, 2012 Posted November 26, 2012 It is amazing how often this generation of conservatives trot out the name of Ronald Reagan, like he is some sort of prop. They act nothing like him and he would consider them a bunch of idiots.
Rob's House Posted November 26, 2012 Posted November 26, 2012 It is amazing how often this generation of conservatives trot out the name of Ronald Reagan, like he is some sort of prop. They act nothing like him and he would consider them a bunch of idiots. Objection. Relevance?
Adam Posted November 26, 2012 Posted November 26, 2012 Objection. Relevance? First- if you think you are included in that reference, it is laughable. Second- President Reagan could influence people without them even knowing he was doing it. Very persuasive man. So many of today's generation seems to want to take their ball and go home if they can't have their way. That method won't win anything for them
Oxrock Posted November 26, 2012 Posted November 26, 2012 It is amazing how often this generation of conservatives trot out the name of Ronald Reagan, like he is some sort of prop. They act nothing like him and he would consider them a bunch of idiots. WTF are you rambling about? I had to read the piece twice to make sure, and then went through this thread again and found no such trotting. Did I miss something?
Rob's House Posted November 26, 2012 Posted November 26, 2012 First- if you think you are included in that reference, it is laughable. Second- President Reagan could influence people without them even knowing he was doing it. Very persuasive man. So many of today's generation seems to want to take their ball and go home if they can't have their way. That method won't win anything for them I wasn't offended, I wasn't sure how your comment related to the issue. I now see you were referring to the guy with the sign in his yard & relating that to throwing a tantrum rather than being persuasive.
Adam Posted November 26, 2012 Posted November 26, 2012 I wasn't offended, I wasn't sure how your comment related to the issue. I now see you were referring to the guy with the sign in his yard & relating that to throwing a tantrum rather than being persuasive. Not just him- the mood I am seeing everywhere is one of "No compromise." that is a shame, because they will fade into oblivion and be replaced by another conservative movement, which will then force them to join it- thus making them compromise.You can't be rigit, when you don't own the hearts and minds of the people- you will push them away. And you can't be rigid when you do have the hearts and minds of the people, as you will push them away. Politics ain't easy.
Rob's House Posted November 26, 2012 Posted November 26, 2012 Not just him- the mood I am seeing everywhere is one of "No compromise." that is a shame, because they will fade into oblivion and be replaced by another conservative movement, which will then force them to join it- thus making them compromise.You can't be rigit, when you don't own the hearts and minds of the people- you will push them away. And you can't be rigid when you do have the hearts and minds of the people, as you will push them away. Politics ain't easy. Again, I'm not sure how you're tying this in to the topic. Are you suggesting people should compromise on the issue of regulating "hate" speech, or are you going off topic?
TakeYouToTasker Posted November 26, 2012 Posted November 26, 2012 I find it very telling that when I wish for spending to be decreased and the purview of the federal government to be reduced, it is regarded as "extremist and uncompromising" on my behalf if anything other than me shifting to the left and agreeing to an expansion of both spending and intervention to some degree occurs. Why is it that liberals are not labled such when they refuse to move right of center and accept governmental reductions of a lesser degree than I had initially desired? Adam's point is a canard until this is addressed.
Adam Posted November 26, 2012 Posted November 26, 2012 (edited) Again, I'm not sure how you're tying this in to the topic. Are you suggesting people should compromise on the issue of regulating "hate" speech, or are you going off topic? No- I am just saying that the tone really needs to change. If he doesn't like our current president, this isn't the way to go about things. It would be nice if we could legislate hate out and morals in, but that doesn't work. And that just spouting off about something you don't like, isn't very persuasive- we had a terrible sign down here, which just made me shake my head- there is a tone that influences and that just isn't it. Edited November 26, 2012 by Adam
Cugalabanza Posted November 26, 2012 Posted November 26, 2012 Adam's point is a canard until this is addressed. Wow, you really love this word. I see you and 3rdning using it all the time. He used it incorrectly once in a reply to something I posted. Outside of the two of you in this forum, I don't think I've seen this word used in about 20 years. It's just odd. I kind of makes me thing you two are the same person. Anyway, my take on the geezer with the signs is that he does have the right to express himself. He is of course a racist, but I support his right to identify himself as such.
Adam Posted November 26, 2012 Posted November 26, 2012 I find it very telling that when I wish for spending to be decreased and the purview of the federal government to be reduced, it is regarded as "extremist and uncompromising" on my behalf if anything other than me shifting to the left and agreeing to an expansion of both spending and intervention to some degree occurs. Why is it that liberals are not labled such when they refuse to move right of center and accept governmental reductions of a lesser degree than I had initially desired? Adam's point is a canard until this is addressed. I feel I have addressed it. His board is not persuasive in the least, it is pretty much the opposite. he has the right to voice his opinion, even if it is not going to bring about the change he wants.
Adam Posted November 26, 2012 Posted November 26, 2012 Adam, what were you saying again? That is the same garbage of was talking about. Embarrassing then, embarrassing now.
3rdnlng Posted November 26, 2012 Posted November 26, 2012 Wow, you really love this word. I see you and 3rdning using it all the time. He used it incorrectly once in a reply to something I posted. Outside of the two of you in this forum, I don't think I've seen this word used in about 20 years. It's just odd. I kind of makes me thing you two are the same person. Anyway, my take on the geezer with the signs is that he does have the right to express himself. He is of course a racist, but I support his right to identify himself as such. I doubt I used it incorrectly. When haven't you put up a canard? You "thing" we are the same person? BTW, my screen name is 3rdnlng as in 3rd and long.
Adam Posted November 26, 2012 Posted November 26, 2012 I doubt I used it incorrectly. When haven't you put up a canard? You "thing" we are the same person? BTW, my screen name is 3rdnlng as in 3rd and long. http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/a/a3/Thing_v2_1_coverart.jpg/250px-Thing_v2_1_coverart.jpg&imgrefurl=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thing_%28comics%29&h=378&w=250&sz=48&tbnid=BuZcU7cPJs7KdM:&tbnh=92&tbnw=61&zoom=1&usg=__-93B_wGTyGTrsRtGsKfW5AcEodE=&docid=MFbmz_th2FT0rM&sa=X&ei=TquzUPHFEJHRigKHzYGQCQ&ved=0CIABEPUBMAk&dur=391
Recommended Posts