Sunday, 6 August 2017
quote [ But there’s no denying that the energy in the Democratic Party is currently with the far left, as evidenced by the single-payer advocates who gave Feinstein so much trouble at a town hall meeting in April. For all her accomplishments, Feinstein’s claim that she’s a liberal is not entirely accurate. ]
Interesting conversation.
|
knumbknutz said[1] @ 4:40am GMT on 6th Aug
[Score:4 Funsightful]
Yeah...she's also married to one of the largest defense contractors on the coast and calls herself antiwar too. We refer to her as Joanne Lieberstein in Southern Cal.
|
Ussmak said @ 12:40pm GMT on 6th Aug
[Score:1 Sad]
Ah, good ol' Joe.
I was young and foolish enough to believe that his bullshit would've been a wake up call to fellow classical liberals, but it wasn't. |
knumbknutz said @ 3:34pm GMT on 6th Aug
Yep - brings me back to the good old days of faux-news trotting out a 49 R-senators and Joe as a "bipartisan vote"
|
norok said @ 6:53am GMT on 6th Aug
There's a real battle going on within the Democratic party now and she sounds like the latest victim.
The "energy" with the far left is a nice way of describing the gravity that's shifting all political affiliations. Liberal is also taking on new meaning as more "conservatives" are willing to accept socially liberal ideal (gay marriage)as well as more likely to defend constitutionally liberal ideas such as freedom of speech which the far Left is bent on suppressing. That's all really in the mainstream now. The far Left also includes full on Socialists which in turn have created reactionary Nationalists. May you live in interesting times. |
Taxman said[1] @ 12:40pm GMT on 6th Aug
Stop it with the 'suppression of freedom of speech' nonsense.
Freedom of speech means the government can't arrest you for what you say. That's IT. Nothing more, nothing less. It does not mean freedom from consequences. Your name can be dragged through the mud on social media. Your business can be boycotted out of existence. Universities can choose to not have you speak on their campuses. These are all perfectly legal and constitutionally protected ways of expressing disapproval of hate speech. None of them involves the government. So until you show me where the left is having the government ARREST people for what they're saying, knock it off. |
Fish said[1] @ 1:28pm GMT on 6th Aug
Stop it with the 'suppression of freedom of speech' nonsense.
Universities can choose to not have you speak on their campuses. So until you show me where the left is having the government ARREST people for what they're saying, knock it off. Unequal protection is suppression. Try again, sweet-ums. |
5th Earth said @ 4:34pm GMT on 6th Aug
Tax dollars support a lot of things. There's a big difference between receiving money from the government, and being *part* of the government. Hell, that's why Republicans love privitization--they can operate using tax dollars without being part of the government.
|
norok said[1] @ 2:58pm GMT on 6th Aug
No, I won't stop because it's called the Overton Window and allowing it to become acceptable to riot, block, and threaten people for their views is a dangerous path to be on.
You're either not paying attention or just agree with everything that's going on. I'm going to bet the latter since this kind of response really comes across as canned and poorly thought out. Freedom of Speech is an ideal. It is an ideal that precedes government to which the US Constitution alludes and subsequent judicial decisions have come to ingrain in our culture. |
Taxman said @ 6:58pm GMT on 6th Aug
[Score:1 Underrated]
Your issue is with private citizens, not the government.
Citizens are protesting, blocking, and threatening what they consider to be unacceptable positions. Protesters are going to protest, and have the right to do so. The government's job is to prevent violence or crimes from occurring, not providing you a protest-free venue. No one is getting harmed without it being considered a big deal (which is not to say that people are not being harmed) on both sides. Until I see the far right denouncing the exact same behavior, perhaps I'll find your hand-wringing over your loss of 'freedom of speech' just a tad disingenuous. |
2345 said[1] @ 2:08pm GMT on 7th Aug
Your link is a red herring. Abortionists are not speakers, and abortions are not speech. This has no relevance to the discussion. It reveals the weakness of your position that you are reduced to citing someone utterly divorced from the conversation at hand. |
conception said @ 4:20pm GMT on 7th Aug
[Score:1 Informative]
I mean... it's pretty easy to find this stuff.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/02/24/republican-lawmakers-introduce-bills-to-curb-protesting-in-at-least-17-states/ https://action.aclu.org/secure/nd-standing-rock-sioux-tribe Much less the President's attacks on the free press. |
Taxman said @ 2:43pm GMT on 7th Aug
Abortionists are citizens and so have the same right to your definition of 'freedom of speech' even if they have 'inconvenient views'. Abortion is a legal action (being blocked, threatened) in the same way you are complaining speaking on universities is being blocked/threatened.
So yes, it is relevant in that you can't stand for one and not the other. Either people should be allowed to do legal things without being threatened/harmed or they should not. You (and the side you represent) do not get to be the arbiter of what is and isn't speech/allowed/protected. When you stand up for ALL Americans, including those that hold legal views different from your own, I will have some sympathy for your "terrible" plight of not being able to speak at universities without protesters showing up. |
2345 said @ 3:06pm GMT on 7th Aug
When I discover that the person I am conversing with can’t understand the distinction between a commencement address and a dead fetus I know that the conversation has run its course. |
Taxman said @ 11:19pm GMT on 7th Aug
I'm not here to argue whether you agree or disagree with the politics of an action.
Regardless of what you say, both actions are currently legal and for both actions people are being harassed and physically harmed. To avoid being a hypocrite, you cannot say one action, protected by law, does NOT deserve to be protected and then cry that another action, also protected by law, is being suppressed. If you were TRULY concerned about the 'ideal' of freedom, that anything protected by law should actually be protected by law, then you would cry out against injustice, harassment, and physical violence in any of its forms. However, as you, norok, and fish have patently shown, you only care about injustices happening to conservatives at the moment. Even more ironic is that your solution would be to remove the very freedom of speech (protesting) that these American citizens are participating in against you. Should there be violence, harassment, or threats? No. However, I expect you to clean up your house before you start crying 'oh god oh god the fascists are coming for us'. In all honesty, I pity you. You do not appear to have the ability to see the argument from outside yourself and your own locked down viewpoints. Once you have shown cognitive dissonance, there's very little chance that an outside party will change your mind. |
2345 said @ 4:17pm GMT on 6th Aug
Taxman’s absurdly narrow (re) definition of free speech is an integral tactic of the left’s suppression of speech. Violent intimidation on university campuses is redefined as “speech”, while the silenced speech itself is erased, by denying any speech suppression has occurred. It’s textbook Orwell. The fascists of the future will call themselves anti-fascists. |
knumbknutz said[1] @ 2:41pm GMT on 6th Aug
Not really. She's definitely no victim.
She's been CA Senator for 25 years now and can take care of herself. There's a reason she runs virtually unopposed every election, with only some token R tomato-can trotted out every election on the ballot (even with CAs open primaries). And she's got the money, connections, and ruthless savvy to put out just about everyone who wants to come after her lights if she wanted to. This just sounds like the start to the 2018's out here. Should be fun - maybe California will get that Rosanne Barr / Cindy Sheehan gubernatorial ticket thing going again. |
norok said @ 3:02pm GMT on 6th Aug
Wrong word perhaps. Let's go with casualty or 'subject of'
I have many friends that live in Democrat strongholds like Washington, California, and Chicago where the Republican party is a complete non-factor and races are between two flavors of Democrats. In Chicago especially I wonder if they'll ever figure out a pattern for their troubles. |
backSLIDER said @ 4:56pm GMT on 6th Aug
As a gun toting liberal I loath this woman. She badivally stands for everything that I don't agree with in the Democratic platform and very little of the good. I've been voting away from her my entire life. The Democrats need to learn that people have changed. We vote on issues and policys how we decide on not how party lines tell us we should.
|