Republicans and free speech

Admiral said:
Exactly (though religious people who threaten to take life, or take life, are by far in the minority). The Christians that threaten to do these things are reprehensible, and the Christians who do are despicable (as are all murderers).

So why do the same thing in response? Why threaten religious people in general? Doesn't it make more sense to respond hatefully towards the people that make these threats, rather than anyone who wears a monk's robe? Why is this any better than hating Muslims in general for what a few screwed-up terrorists did?

It's the generalization I'm reacting to, fuelair.
Click to expand...

I'm guessing/realizing that you did not recognize the costume I was describing. Monks robes and hoods do not have crosses on them. KKK robes/hoods frequently do.
 
Tmy said:
I had this argument wh some righty over free speech and Kramers rant.
I always find it funny when republicans bring up free speech. Then a theory hit me.

The only time righties bring up free speech is when they are defending some bigot. Am I wrong?
Click to expand...

Both the repulicans and the democrats have libertarian wings that are always pro-speech. But you're right, other than libertarian oriented partisans, the rest generally only support free speech of the type they favor. Ideally they would check and balance each other so that free speech ends up maximized, like how spending was successfully restricted by Clinton and Gingrich in conflict.
 
Tmy said:
I had this argument wh some righty over free speech and Kramers rant.
I always find it funny when republicans bring up free speech. Then a theory hit me.

The only time righties bring up free speech is when they are defending some bigot. Am I wrong?
Click to expand...

Yes, you are wrong.
 
Darth Rotor said:
Nah, it makes me seem like someone with an attitude.

That last line was unnecessary. My bad, and my apologies. Drinking and posting don't mix. :(

DR
Click to expand...

Thanks for the explanation!

It has cleared up something about you that I have been a bit concerned about.
 
RandFan said:
I find very few people including Democrats who are really for free speech. I'm a Republican and I have consistently been in favor of free speech. Many Democrats simply label the speech they don't like "hate speech" or politically incorrect. It's a very effective form of censorship (yes, I do understand that what most people mean by "free speech" is the freedom of government interference of speech.

That said, I will agree that those Democrats who want to restrict speech are more narrow in the speech they want to restrict than those Republicans who want to restrict speech.

However, many Democrats will respond to just about any slight when it comes to censorship from the right but speech codes at college campuses are always defended or down played. Whenever I have made a point about college speech codes someone wants to give a more egregious example perpetrated by the right as if that would make the speech codes ok by comparison.

Like I said, few people are truly for free speech.
Click to expand...


As usual, with you, I just need to say....what RandFan said:D

As a matter of disclosure..I am a rightie...a frustrated Republican, if you will. And not an ACLU hating one either.
 
Last edited:
Tmy said:
The only time righties bring up free speech is when they are defending some bigot. Am I wrong?
Click to expand...

Yes, if they're not drinking the blood of innocent children then they're doing some other hideously despicable act. And they're all like that too, every single one.
 
senorpogo said:
Yes, if they're not drinking the blood of innocent children then they're doing some other hideously despicable act. And they're all like that too, every single one.
Click to expand...

OK, who narced on us? Was it Cheney. Geez a couple of beers in him :rolleyes:
 
elaine said:
OK, who narced on us? Was it Cheney. Geez a couple of beers in him :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Cheney strikes me as a three martini lunch kind of guy. I bet it would take something like a twelve pack to get him going even a little bit.
 
Darth Rotor said:
You are welcomed to try and play capture the flag.

Can you outrun a bullet, smartass?

DR
Click to expand...

I'm sort of intrigued. I'm assuming you wouldn't kill to protect, say, a pair of your socks. So the question is why particularly would you kill to protect your flag. Flags are no more irreplaceble than are a pair of socks. I certainly could understand your taking great offense at someone burning your flag in as much as it represents something sacred to you, but killing over the flag itself, which is merely a symbol of something and not the thing itself, it seems very extreme to me.
 
billydkid said:
I'm sort of intrigued. I'm assuming you wouldn't kill to protect, say, a pair of your socks. So the question is why particularly would you kill to protect your flag. Flags are no more irreplaceble than are a pair of socks. I certainly could understand your taking great offense at someone burning your flag in as much as it represents something sacred to you, but killing over the flag itself, which is merely a symbol of something and not the thing itself, it seems very extreme to me.
Click to expand...
It's more than fabric. Yes it's a symbol, and I completely appreciate your having a different attachment to that symbol than me.

DR
 
elaine said:
As usual, with you, I just need to say....what RandFan said:D

As a matter of disclosure..I am a rightie...a frustrated Republican, if you will. And not an ACLU hating one either.
Click to expand...

By "rightie" do you mean you are conservative? Because the two are really quite different. Righties, in my view, are really extremists and activists similar in mentality to lefties - who are not genuinely liberals in any authentic sense of the word. The two simply have different agendas and they are both authoritarian leaning.
 
Darth Rotor said:
It's more than fabric. Yes it's a symbol, and I completely appreciate your having a different attachment to that symbol than me.

DR
Click to expand...

I'm guessing you have one in particular that was from your time in the service and not one you bought at wal-mart?
 
Tailgater said:
I'm guessing you have one in particular that was from your time in the service and not one you bought at wal-mart?
Click to expand...
Yes, though I admit I felt this way about the flags I had purchased and flown in front of my house before that particular flag came into my possession. I was flying a flag every day, in front of my house long before 9-11. My time in the sandbox, and most particularly my colleagues who died there, has only strengthened the importance to me.

DR
 
Last edited:
Darth Rotor said:
What, that I know what I'll kill for? :boggled:

DR
Click to expand...

Yes.

Even though you say that you would kill to protect your property, your flag, and other such violent things, however you also say that you post while drinking.

Thus, I conclude that when you make such obnoxious statements, then it may well be the alcohol talking.
 
Crossbow said:
Thus, I conclude that when you make such obnoxious statements, then it may well be the alcohol talking.
Click to expand...
Perhaps in a post like that, the inhibitions are reduced enough to invoke a moment of "en vino veritas?" ;) That doesn't make such a crass comment to Ken appropriate, nor defensible, within the norms of this board. If my comment appeared to be an attempt to excuse that bad action, it wasn't, and the admonition to me is "if you drink, don't post," with the idea being that it is better to not have said the careless word than to have to try and recall it.

Over a decade ago, in a context entirely different from Iraq and Afghanistan, I embarked on an internal examination of what I am willing to kill for. Not everyone does, nor necessarily should, look into that. I felt it necessary for my own satisfaction.

DR
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom