Republicans and free speech

I'm sure he feels like "killing someone" who would do such a thing. That doesn't mean he would do it. I don't find it obnoxious for someone to say "I could shoot someone for that". I said it in holiday traffic this last weekend.
 
Crossbow said:
Yes.
Click to expand...

Wow, you stepped in that trap without even realizing it. DR didn't ask if you objected to WHAT he'll kill for, he asked if you object to the fact that he KNOWS what he'll kill for. The obvious conclusion from your "yes" response, if taken at face value, is that you prefer people not to know what they would kill for. And that is, quite frankly, a stupid position. I'm guessing it's not what you really meant, but the response betrays the fact that you don't really understand DR or his position, and you have not actually thought much about what you yourself would be willing to kill for.
 
Ziggurat said:
Wow, you stepped in that trap without even realizing it. DR didn't ask if you objected to WHAT he'll kill for, he asked if you object to the fact that he KNOWS what he'll kill for. The obvious conclusion from your "yes" response, if taken at face value, is that you prefer people not to know what they would kill for. And that is, quite frankly, a stupid position. I'm guessing it's not what you really meant, but the response betrays the fact that you don't really understand DR or his position, and you have not actually thought much about what you yourself would be willing to kill for.
Click to expand...
This is what happens when one of us, me in this case, derails a thread by making an ill considered post (my reply to ThaiboxerKen), and wanders away from the point. Mea Culpa, and lets get back to free speech.

"This talk of death is chilling!" :( (G & S reference)

DR
 
Yeah, Darth- I took that too seriously. If it was just, you know, attitude, then there's really no harm done. (And I didn't know you served.)

fuelair said:
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.
Click to expand...

Ack- I was indeed mistaken. (Though I'm wondering why you connected Republicans to this, which is quite a stretch). It was around two in the morning in my time zone when I was writing that, so I didn't think it through properly.

Obviously it's not as strange a desire as thinking about murdering monks, but my reaction is still similar- would you actually support killing members of the Ku Klux Klan? I personally find the organization despicable, and will never respect them, their goals, or their beliefs, but I would still never think of killing someone for what they believed, no matter how repulsed I am. I also support their right to free speech and their right to protest, as I do for any group, no matter how much I despise what they say.

I know a few things I would kill for- to protect me or my family, or other similar matters- but over ideology? No matter how extreme, I wouldn't do it.
 
Admiral said:
You might be a libertarian. (Sorry, I'm always on the lookout.)
Click to expand...

Um, no. I am a conservative Republican. I've been familiar with the Libertarians since I first met some in 1977 and realized even back then they were pretty whacked.

Sure, I oppose a flag burning amendment. But I also oppose abortion. And abortion is more important to me than flag burning.

Sure, I favor legalizing marijuana, but I am opposed to legalizing crack. I'd rather marijuana stay illegal than see crack legal.

So, no. I am not a libertarian.
 
billydkid said:
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.
Click to expand...

Authoritarian. You nailed it.
That is the part of the characterization I have been missing.
 
The KKK had David Duke who as a republican didn't get much backing. All the KKKers -- old and new -- are firmly, happily, another splinter group of the nutcases who comprise democrats and those who vote for them.
 
Newt Gingrich seems to think free speech helps terrorism and wants the First Amendment to be changed. So much for GOP support of free speech. :oldroll:
Linky.
 
Admiral said:
Yeah, Darth- I took that too seriously. If it was just, you know, attitude, then there's really no harm done. (And I didn't know you served.)



Ack- I was indeed mistaken. (Though I'm wondering why you connected Republicans to this, which is quite a stretch). It was around two in the morning in my time zone when I was writing that, so I didn't think it through properly.

Obviously it's not as strange a desire as thinking about murdering monks, but my reaction is still similar- would you actually support killing members of the Ku Klux Klan? I personally find the organization despicable, and will never respect them, their goals, or their beliefs, but I would still never think of killing someone for what they believed, no matter how repulsed I am. I also support their right to free speech and their right to protest, as I do for any group, no matter how much I despise what they say.

I know a few things I would kill for- to protect me or my family, or other similar matters- but over ideology? No matter how extreme, I wouldn't do it.
Click to expand...
Actually, I did not connect Republicans to anything (well, not on this thread anyway) My initial response was to a comment about bigots and letting them talk so they could be easily identifed. Nowhere have I said anything (this thread or others) about physical harm to Republicans as a group. To explain more fully: let us say I am walking along a river bank in the deep south toting a streetsweeper and several magazines for it and I happen upon a group of Kluxers "talking" with a tied up person and with weapons. I am going to use the streetsweeper as it is designed to be used and then ask the tied up person what was going on. The use of the weapon is to guarantee no interruptions while I am asking. Wouldn't use if they are just playing their little out in a field burning crosses game(although there are fun things I might do then) but if they are endangering/damaging lives...........
 
Psi Baba said:
Newt Gingrich seems to think free speech helps terrorism and wants the First Amendment to be changed. So much for GOP support of free speech. :oldroll:
Linky.
Click to expand...
Newt =/= GOP. He's still talking away, but his time as speaker ended in 1998. IIRC, he resigned before the 2000 election. He's back to being a garden variety blowhard, which he is very good at.

DR
 
Psi Baba said:
Newt Gingrich seems to think free speech helps terrorism and wants the First Amendment to be changed. So much for GOP support of free speech.
Click to expand...

So if one member of a party supports something it logically follows that all members (and the organization as a whole) also support that position? I don't think I have to point out how poor that logic is. Or maybe I do? Unbelievable.
 
Psi Baba said:
Newt Gingrich seems to think free speech helps terrorism and wants the First Amendment to be changed. So much for GOP support of free speech. :oldroll:
Linky.
Click to expand...

Could you quote the part where he says that? I must have missed that part. Is openly recruiting terrorists covered in the first amendment to begin with?

As far as I know, both parties want to change the attack ads (ie: Dems and the swiftboat ads)

As far as the religious part, I would have to see the cases he is discussing to have an opinion. There was an incident here where a kid with a jesus shirt was told to turn it inside out, while another kid in his same class was allowed to wear a manson shirt. I think that is anti-free speech. Forcing religious ceremonies or images to be advertised in publicly funded places or by public employees should not be considered "freedom of religion or speech".
 
thaiboxerken said:
Yep. They also want the freedom to preach the christians faith to children in public schools.
Click to expand...

As long as I can hold a real Bacchanalia on school property, it would be all right with me. But I think they might take issue with a drunken orgy, damn double standard.
 
senorpogo said:
So if one member of a party supports something it logically follows that all members (and the organization as a whole) also support that position? I don't think I have to point out how poor that logic is. Or maybe I do? Unbelievable.
Click to expand...

Logic is not always the deciding factor. Did you notice any significant non-support from the Republican controlled congress and senate over the last couple of years?
 
Admiral said:
Also, I wouldn't kill to protect fabric, even if it was my fabric. I'm with thaiboxerken- the ability to kill someone doesn't make you right, and the threat to kill someone for destroying a flag seems petty.
Click to expand...
No might always makes right, I thought you knew that.

It also makes me wonder how far these people are from tax protestors who shoot federal agents and such. They are protecting their property after all.
 
Admiral said:
I think the point was, "as opposed to defending flag burning or pornography."
Click to expand...

Pornography is popular, just look at how many billion dollar a year business it is in the US. So that might well fit into a relatively small catagory of popular expression that needs to be protected.
 
Darth Rotor said:
Consider looking at my remark on "spoiling his aim" as follows: he didn't kill what he hit. ;)

DR
Click to expand...

But that was a poor choice in weapon, as it was ineffective at that range loaded that way. Really it was not his aim that was the issue, it was when shooting fish in a barrel he forgot that there might be something in the bottom of the barrel.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom