Republicans and free speech

Darth Rotor said:
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
Click to expand...

So he has no jobs with in the rebuplican party anymore? Just because someone is not in an elected office does not mean they have no power.
 
fishbob said:
For what the lead member of the party supports.

In less cryptic language, the president got what he wanted with no significant non-support. Maybe not intended as actual support, but in effect it is.
Click to expand...

I'm still confused. You're not talking about anything pertaining to freedom of speech persay? Are you saying that members of a party support a position if they don't actively oppose the position?
 
senorpogo said:
I'm still confused. You're not talking about anything pertaining to freedom of speech persay? Are you saying that members of a party support a position if they don't actively oppose the position?
Click to expand...
I went off on a tangent. Maybe too cryptic, so please ignore.
Oh yeah - 'per se' dammit.
 
fishbob said:
I went off on a tangent. Maybe too cryptic, so please ignore.
Oh yeah - 'per se' dammit.
Click to expand...

Thanks.

And I think I'm starting to see your point. But I would add that non-support of legislation or executive action is very different than non-support of some random comments made by someone who is just associated with the party or organization.
 
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...
No, it wasn't good logic on my part and wasn't intended to be, but if he ran for President, the voting (whether he won or not) would give a good indication of how many members support his positions.
 
Tailgater said:
Could you quote the part where he says that? I must have missed that part.
Click to expand...
Right at the beginning:
Newt Gingrich yesterday said the country will be forced to reexamine freedom of speech to meet the threat of terrorism.

Gingrich, speaking at a Manchester awards banquet, said a "different set of rules" may be needed to reduce terrorists' ability to use the Internet and free speech to recruit and get out their message.
Click to expand...
 
Psi Baba said:
No, it wasn't good logic on my part and wasn't intended to be, but if he ran for President, the voting (whether he won or not) would give a good indication of how many members support his positions.
Click to expand...

But that hasn't happened. Probably never will. So it's unfair to sarcastically say - "so much for GOP support of free speech" - just because of the opinions of one member.

I could use the same tactics on the Democrats. Many Democrats (and Republicans too) supported an amendment outlawing flag burning. I don't think it would be fair for to portray all Democrats as being against free speech because some members of the party supported one piece of legislation that attacked a single part of that freedom.

So I'd appreciated the same fairness when discussing the Republican party.
 
Prayer in school is a righty free speech angle?? Ummmmm no!!! THey only promote christian prayer in schools. They freak anytime any other religion gets a foothold in some public school action.

And by "they" i mean stereotypical party line partisians.
 
LawnOven said:
I understand, I made that comment because I I took Luke T's comments to mean he wished to identify himself as a republican who opposed flag burning. If one wishes to call them self a republican and votes for republicans most of the time, I see no reason why one should have the title of libertarian hoisted upon them.

Maybe it is a mistake in my reading comprehension, the OP title says republican and the post says righty, conflating the two. Maybe Luke T considers himself a "righty" libertarian, as opposed to a "righty" republican. He just said righty, not republican, maybe he's being sly in regards to the general sentiment of the OP. I don't know.

I hope you understand what I am trying to say.

Mainly I'm just taking issue with framing a statement in a way which paints a broad brush with a diverse group of people and then defines away an argument against said statement.

It just sounds like a no true Scotsman fallacy to me, and is at the very least not a very good way to have an open dialog with those you may disagree with (which I am assuming was the point of this thread to begin with).

(All of this coming from a bleeding heart liberal ;))

The reason I eye social conservatives suspiciously is because, in my opinion, usually the social cost of their politics is high, and the reasoning is almost always suspect.
Click to expand...
I agree.
 
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...
Anecdotal, here's a clue, Gingrich isn't the GOP. So much for critical thinking. :oldroll:
 
always seemed counterintuitive to me, the righties all uptight and conservative and whatnot have never passed a law limiting my speech or freedom

the left has, again and again and again and again
 
Tailgater said:
I've never met a Republican who would support that. What an ignorant generalization. Wacko fundies want that. That's like saying all Democrats want to ban anything religious in public. There are factions in both, but none of them believe these things as a whole or even a majority.
Click to expand...

Considering who the republicans voted in for president, I'll just have to take your opinion for what it's worth... which isn't much.
 
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...

You do not know what you are talking about.

However, please feel free to continue to express your ignorance.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom