Kelly the Dog Posted September 28, 2017 Share Posted September 28, 2017 But you don't get to make that call, and your personal offense does not somehow strip away protections on political speech no matter how opposed you are to someone's ideas. What you are doing is engaging in a special pleading fallacy because you find the philosophy of the Alt-Right particularly appalling, and you want the rules to be different for his ideas than for others. And that's not how this works. Finally, I'm not protecting Richard Spencer. The United States Constitution protects Richard Spencer just as it protects you, me, Colin Kaepernick, and everybody else who can lay claim to US citizenship; and the protections it provides are only good when they protect all of us equally, under the law. I only inserted myself as an aside. We weren't talking about my personal feelings I just added them. Sorry for the confusion. I was ONLY saying that you asked an unfair question of someone, which is what started this, if you were going to take all of Spencer's quotes as being under the umbrella of a politician. There isn't an answer to you question. That's all. Thanks for the exchange. The point he's making is that there's a difference between suspending the existing rights of citizens and passing legislation that would affect the privileges currently available to certain people. It's not a defense of Richard Spencer, it's just drawing a distinction between two concepts that are not analogous. It doesn't mean either is right. I understand that and agree with it. That's not what I was talking about when this started. I wasn't considering legislation at all, in any way. Or his political movement. Or the alt-right. It devolved into all that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ALF Posted September 28, 2017 Share Posted September 28, 2017 Â ROGER SIMON: Kneeling for a Self-Deceiving Lie. Read the whole thing. Â Â Video's can rile a lot of people up in some incidents. Â I do think all police should be wearing cameras . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeviF Posted September 28, 2017 Share Posted September 28, 2017 Â Video's can rile a lot of people up in some incidents. Â I do think all police should be wearing cameras . Â So do most cops. Now that body cameras have been implemented in many departments, I'm still waiting for all these videos of unjustified shoots of black folks I was promised Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koko78 Posted September 28, 2017 Share Posted September 28, 2017 I love body camera footage. It's like watching an episode of Cops. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted September 28, 2017 Share Posted September 28, 2017 If he prevented a person from being here, which is what he is saying he would like to be doing, yes it would be a privilege but they would also automatically have all kinds of rights which they don't have because he would have illegally been keeping them out. So he is preventing them from those rights.  If you want to get technical, then he is violating the inalienable human rights bequeathed in the constitution of pursuit of happiness.  He would be stopping all Africans. You don't have to be allowed into the country. That's why I used the example of several Africans. A court would surely rule their rights were violated. Tsk, tsk, tsk. That's in the Preamble of the Declaration of Independence, silly. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." John Adams  The Constitution's Preamble - which is in itself not a part of the law of the land states, "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."  "Rights" in this context appear to be "God-given" and not bestowed by Congress or any other government body. The Right to Life is inalienable. The Right to Liberty is inalienable. And, the Right to pursue happiness is inalienable.  There's no "Right" to an Obamaphone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted September 28, 2017 Share Posted September 28, 2017 Tsk, tsk, tsk. That's in the Preamble of the Declaration of Independence, silly. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." John Adams  The Constitution's Preamble - which is in itself not a part of the law of the land states, "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."  "Rights" in this context appear to be "God-given" and not bestowed by Congress or any other government body. The Right to Life is inalienable. The Right to Liberty is inalienable. And, the Right to pursue happiness is inalienable.  There's no "Right" to an Obamaphone. Thomas Jefferson, silly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted September 28, 2017 Share Posted September 28, 2017 Thomas Jefferson, silly. Â Slave-owner. Hence opinion is invalidated Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted September 28, 2017 Share Posted September 28, 2017 Thought this was funny. Even features BIlls fans. Â Â Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted September 28, 2017 Share Posted September 28, 2017 Â Slave-owner. Hence opinion is invalidated Well, only three quarters invalidated because his slaves were only three quarters of a person. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted September 28, 2017 Share Posted September 28, 2017 Well, only three quarters invalidated because his slaves were only three quarters of a person. Â Three-fifths. Don't overvalue them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted September 28, 2017 Share Posted September 28, 2017 Â Three-fifths. Don't overvalue them. Right. My bad. I forgot they also didn't count that one leg from the thigh down. Refresh my memory, what year did they become 100% human? I know for a lot of these heathens here that hasn't happened yet, I'm just talking legally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted September 28, 2017 Share Posted September 28, 2017 Right. My bad. I forgot they also didn't count that one leg from the thigh down. Refresh my memory, what year did they become 100% human? I know for a lot of these heathens here that hasn't happened yet, I'm just talking legally. Â It depends. 1868, if you believe in the rule of law. 1863 if you're a fascist like gatorman. If you want to get technical, then he is violating the inalienable human rights bequeathed in the constitution of pursuit of happiness. Â No he's not. You can "pursue happiness" all you want. There's no guarantee you'll catch it, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
row_33 Posted September 28, 2017 Share Posted September 28, 2017 happiness..... ?????? Â quite the move that one was... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted September 28, 2017 Share Posted September 28, 2017 UNEXPECTEDLY: Â NFL ticket sales plummet 17.9%. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted September 28, 2017 Share Posted September 28, 2017 Good does that mean I can get a Bears Ticket now and park for under 400 bucks? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted September 28, 2017 Share Posted September 28, 2017 Good does that mean I can get a Bears Ticket now and park for under 400 bucks?Thats $410 too much. Maybe more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HappyDays Posted September 28, 2017 Share Posted September 28, 2017 (edited) UNEXPECTEDLY: Â NFL ticket sales plummet 17.9%. They fell 7.1% compared to last year, they just use 17.9% to make the headline stronger because that's what propaganda outlets do. But that sounds about right. I could see 7% of diehard NFL fans being so upset by the protests they stop buying tickets. That's really not a big decrease and it's impossible to know how much is from the protests and how much is from chance. That's also just one online ticket retailer so who knows if it's a widespread decrease. Â I suspect the protests will lead to SOME decrease in ratings, etc., I just don't think it will be that big. Most people don't care that much. They might care enough to whine about it online. But most people won't stop watching entirely. Edited September 28, 2017 by HappyDays Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted September 28, 2017 Share Posted September 28, 2017 I suspect the protests will lead to SOME decrease in ratings, etc., I just don't think it will be that big. Most people don't care that much. They might care enough to whine about it online. But most people won't stop watching entirely. Â Teams are already announcing they won't be kneeling during games any more. Â They know a losing cause when they see one, assuming the Cheetoh keeps his piehole shut. Â Perhaps if we're lucky, the reboot of Will & Grace will make fun of Trump tonight, Trump will start tweeting about that, Debra Messing will schit another purple Twinkie, and football can get back to being something to watch to escape the rest of the world. Like I said...Losing cause. Â Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted September 28, 2017 Share Posted September 28, 2017 Thomas Jefferson, silly. Nope. Adams. Jeff had the Constitution. Adams was addressing Pennsylvania and Maryland's particular setup with the Crown. Try again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted September 29, 2017 Share Posted September 29, 2017 Nope. Adams. Jeff had the Constitution. Adams was addressing Pennsylvania and Maryland's particular setup with the Crown. Try again. Jefferson wrote the preamble. Pretty much all of the declaration. Adams made a few corrections but not to the preamble. https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/why-did-jefferson-draft-the-declaration-of-independence Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts