Sotomayor agrees with Stan
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Free speech means political speech, not the freedom to insult, ridicule, or offend.
ROFL. Love is hate. Peace is War. Free Speech is Censorship. Big brother Stan is watching you
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
Oakman wrote:
Love is hate. Peace is War. Free Speech is Censorship. Big brother Stan is watching you
Sorry to smudge your libertarian tinted glasses, but this country has always had laws against offensive speech and behavior. From the very beginning, in fact. Hell, for most of our history, offensive speech could get you gunned down on the mainstreet in broad day light. And all perfectly Jeffersonian.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Wow, thats not even close to anything Sotomayor said. You seem to be trying to control the debate and restrict the opinions of others by labeling anything you disagree with as 'racist'.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Wow, thats not even close to anything Sotomayor said.
You're right. She has never defended racism. You have. John just proved it. As you asked him to. Once again you try to change the subject totally when you realise you've back yourself into a corner. The problem is, most of us aren't as stupid as you wish we were.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
-
Oakman wrote:
Love is hate. Peace is War. Free Speech is Censorship. Big brother Stan is watching you
Sorry to smudge your libertarian tinted glasses, but this country has always had laws against offensive speech and behavior. From the very beginning, in fact. Hell, for most of our history, offensive speech could get you gunned down on the mainstreet in broad day light. And all perfectly Jeffersonian.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
this country has always had laws against offensive speech and behavior.
"and behavior?" Who was talking about behavior? Is you ADD acting up again? - As for laws restricting speech - I suggest you read what your hero Jefferson had to say when Adams tried to impose some.
Stan Shannon wrote:
offensive speech could get you gunned down on the mainstreet
Jeffersonian? :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: There is nothing more libertarian than the code duello. It makes people responsible for their own words and actions like nothing else ever will. But then again, Jefferson was pretty libertarian, himself.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Wow, thats not even close to anything Sotomayor said.
You're right. She has never defended racism. You have. John just proved it. As you asked him to. Once again you try to change the subject totally when you realise you've back yourself into a corner. The problem is, most of us aren't as stupid as you wish we were.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
Oakman wrote:
You're right. She has never defended racism. You have. John just proved it. As you asked him to. Once again you try to change the subject totally when you realise you've back yourself into a corner. The problem is, most of us aren't as stupid as you wish we were.
Damn, that is one stupid comment, Jon. This entire thread is about her defending actual racism. John links to a post where I said I was intolerant of racism, and that proves I'm a racist? But, you as a libertarian, don't believe people have the right to be racists? I believe that everyone has the right to be intolerant of whatever the hell they wish to be intolerant of. I'm pretty damned sure I am far more intellectual consistent than you are.
Oakman wrote:
Once again you try to change the subject totally when you realise you've back yourself into a corner.
How the hell did I change the subject? Carson is the one that linked to a post completely unrelated to his original accusation.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
this country has always had laws against offensive speech and behavior.
"and behavior?" Who was talking about behavior? Is you ADD acting up again? - As for laws restricting speech - I suggest you read what your hero Jefferson had to say when Adams tried to impose some.
Stan Shannon wrote:
offensive speech could get you gunned down on the mainstreet
Jeffersonian? :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: There is nothing more libertarian than the code duello. It makes people responsible for their own words and actions like nothing else ever will. But then again, Jefferson was pretty libertarian, himself.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
Oakman wrote:
and behavior?" Who was talking about behavior? Is you ADD acting up again? - As for laws restricting speech - I suggest you read what your hero Jefferson had to say when Adams tried to impose some.
I don't have to read anything, the history of this nation and how it was governed speaks for itself. Nothing Jefferson wrote changes that.
Oakman wrote:
There is nothing more libertarian than the code duello. It makes people responsible for their own words and actions like nothing else ever will. But then again, Jefferson was pretty libertarian, himself.
I never said Jefferson did not express sentiments currently promoted by modern self styled 'libertarians'. But, by your own definition, there is absolutely nothing libertarian about killing someone you disagree with. And the fact that you could say that shows how utterly confused you are on the subject.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Daniel Ferguson wrote:
but they're never going to get the Irony Trophy out of Rush's sweaty little hands.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Could you back up your allegations with actual citations?
"I said the reason to do it was to tell the American people who Obama is. [Sotomayor] is a reflection of Barack Obama's own racial identity, his own bigotry. That's why she was chosen. America doesn't know who Obama is. Use the hearing to inform Ameri -- since she can't be stopped anyway, we don't have the votes nor the wherewithal." - Limbaugh "If we have any hope, ladies and gentlemen, of keeping this a united country and not a country divided by race and other factors that this administration and the left are committed to advancing -- I will say this again: The left from Barack Obama on down are committed to a divided country." - Limbaugh It takes a special kind of person to look at a Black man and a Hispanic woman and see racists. It's ironic because his own racism is what drives him to attack them and call them racists. Then there's Limbaugh's rhetoric about gay marriage and the sanctity of marriage. It's ironic because he's been married and divorced three times, and yet he's worried about gays destroying marriage. When Michael Steele said, "So let’s put it into context here. Let’s put it into context here. Rush Limbaugh is an entertainer. Rush Limbaugh, his whole thing is entertainment. Yes, it’s incendiary. Yes, it’s ugly." Does Limbaugh stop and think about whether he's incendiary and ugly? Nope, he just fires back with an attack.
Limbaugh fired back on his radio show Monday, saying the Republican chairman appears to be supporting President Barack Obama and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. He said Steele appears "obsessed with seeing to it President Obama succeeds." "I frankly am stunned that the chairman of the Republican National Committee endorses such an agenda," Limbaugh said. "I have to conclude that he does, because he attacks me for wanting it to fail."
http://edition.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/03/02/gop.steele.limbaugh/[^] Steele is worried that Limbaugh's vitriol is driving people away from the Republican party. This is ironic because Limbaugh responds with an incendiary
Daniel Ferguson wrote:
It takes a special kind of person to look at a Black man and a Hispanic woman and see racists.
SO there is to be no criticism of people who are black or latino, even when they make comments that would destroy a white politicians career? No white person has the right to point that out? No freedom of speech if you are white unless a black person or a hispanic first gives permission?
Daniel Ferguson wrote:
It's ironic because his own racism is what drives him to attack them and call them racists.
What racism? YOu use that term for no other reason than to destroy freedom of speech for those who oppose your political agenda. There is nothing racist about Limbaugh.
Daniel Ferguson wrote:
His shtick is to take his own flaws and stridently accuse others of them and that's why he has the Irony Tropy.
No, the situation is precisely and demonstrably the opposite of that. Sotomayor is a racist, as is Obama. They have an irrifutable hisotry of actual, real world hatred of white people. Limbaugh has a history of defending traditional American society as a trully wonderful and remarkable accomplishment which should be celebrated by everyone of all races, creeds and colors.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Oakman wrote:
You're right. She has never defended racism. You have. John just proved it. As you asked him to. Once again you try to change the subject totally when you realise you've back yourself into a corner. The problem is, most of us aren't as stupid as you wish we were.
Damn, that is one stupid comment, Jon. This entire thread is about her defending actual racism. John links to a post where I said I was intolerant of racism, and that proves I'm a racist? But, you as a libertarian, don't believe people have the right to be racists? I believe that everyone has the right to be intolerant of whatever the hell they wish to be intolerant of. I'm pretty damned sure I am far more intellectual consistent than you are.
Oakman wrote:
Once again you try to change the subject totally when you realise you've back yourself into a corner.
How the hell did I change the subject? Carson is the one that linked to a post completely unrelated to his original accusation.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
John links to a post where I said I was intolerant of racism, and that proves I'm a racist? Carson is the one that linked to a post completely unrelated to his original accusation.
I didn't accuse you of racism. I accused you of defending racist speech, i.e., of saying that racists have the perfect right to express their racist opinions. The quote proves it. Sotomayor found that that the First Amendment offers some protection for racist speech, something that you should applaud, were you consistent.
John Carson
-
Daniel Ferguson wrote:
It takes a special kind of person to look at a Black man and a Hispanic woman and see racists.
SO there is to be no criticism of people who are black or latino, even when they make comments that would destroy a white politicians career? No white person has the right to point that out? No freedom of speech if you are white unless a black person or a hispanic first gives permission?
Daniel Ferguson wrote:
It's ironic because his own racism is what drives him to attack them and call them racists.
What racism? YOu use that term for no other reason than to destroy freedom of speech for those who oppose your political agenda. There is nothing racist about Limbaugh.
Daniel Ferguson wrote:
His shtick is to take his own flaws and stridently accuse others of them and that's why he has the Irony Tropy.
No, the situation is precisely and demonstrably the opposite of that. Sotomayor is a racist, as is Obama. They have an irrifutable hisotry of actual, real world hatred of white people. Limbaugh has a history of defending traditional American society as a trully wonderful and remarkable accomplishment which should be celebrated by everyone of all races, creeds and colors.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
No, the situation is precisely and demonstrably the opposite of that. Sotomayor is a racist, as is Obama. They have an irrifutable hisotry of actual, real world hatred of white people. Limbaugh has a history of defending traditional American society as a trully wonderful and remarkable accomplishment which should be celebrated by everyone of all races, creeds and colors.
Oh hey, is it Backwards Day again so soon? :laugh:
You never ever could win a war / That's what you have to learn / Here everybody is a loser / You will get nothing in return - "Fortunes of War", Funker Vogt
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
No, the situation is precisely and demonstrably the opposite of that. Sotomayor is a racist, as is Obama. They have an irrifutable hisotry of actual, real world hatred of white people. Limbaugh has a history of defending traditional American society as a trully wonderful and remarkable accomplishment which should be celebrated by everyone of all races, creeds and colors.
Oh hey, is it Backwards Day again so soon? :laugh:
You never ever could win a war / That's what you have to learn / Here everybody is a loser / You will get nothing in return - "Fortunes of War", Funker Vogt
Daniel Ferguson wrote:
Oh hey, is it Backwards Day again so soon?
Every day is backwards day in our Brave New Liberal World.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
John links to a post where I said I was intolerant of racism, and that proves I'm a racist? Carson is the one that linked to a post completely unrelated to his original accusation.
I didn't accuse you of racism. I accused you of defending racist speech, i.e., of saying that racists have the perfect right to express their racist opinions. The quote proves it. Sotomayor found that that the First Amendment offers some protection for racist speech, something that you should applaud, were you consistent.
John Carson
John Carson wrote:
I didn't accuse you of racism. I accused you of defending racist speech, i.e., of saying that racists have the perfect right to express their racist opinions. The quote proves it.
John Carson wrote:
Sotomayor found that that the First Amendment offers some protection for racist speech, something that you should applaud, were you consistent.
All of which indicates how foreign the central concepts of Jeffersonian democracy are to you. I am entirely consistent. I, as an individual, believe that people should be free to be as intolerant as they like based upon the dictates of their own conscience. So, absolutely, I would, and regularly do, tolerate racist speech from people. I don't hang around them, and I might express my disagreement when circumstances permit, but I do tolerate it in the sense that I accept them as members of my society. However, if my community were to disagree with me and assert that some forms of speech serve no political purpose and are merely designed to harm local standards of civility and morality, than I would bow to the will of the people and expect everyone to adher to those standards. Obviously, that would be something that the courts should be very sensitive about, but a conservatie judiciary would tend to allow great leeway to communities to up hold their own standards as the constitution intended.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
John Carson wrote:
I didn't accuse you of racism. I accused you of defending racist speech, i.e., of saying that racists have the perfect right to express their racist opinions. The quote proves it.
John Carson wrote:
Sotomayor found that that the First Amendment offers some protection for racist speech, something that you should applaud, were you consistent.
All of which indicates how foreign the central concepts of Jeffersonian democracy are to you. I am entirely consistent. I, as an individual, believe that people should be free to be as intolerant as they like based upon the dictates of their own conscience. So, absolutely, I would, and regularly do, tolerate racist speech from people. I don't hang around them, and I might express my disagreement when circumstances permit, but I do tolerate it in the sense that I accept them as members of my society. However, if my community were to disagree with me and assert that some forms of speech serve no political purpose and are merely designed to harm local standards of civility and morality, than I would bow to the will of the people and expect everyone to adher to those standards. Obviously, that would be something that the courts should be very sensitive about, but a conservatie judiciary would tend to allow great leeway to communities to up hold their own standards as the constitution intended.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
I am entirely consistent.
In your dreams.
Stan Shannon wrote:
However, if my community were to disagree with me and assert that some forms of speech serve no political purpose and are merely designed to harm local standards of civility and morality, than I would bow to the will of the people and expect everyone to adher to those standards.
http://www.codeproject.com/Messages/1086187/Re-jailtime.aspx[^]
Stan Shannon wrote:
Obviously, that would be something that the courts should be very sensitive about, but a conservatie judiciary would tend to allow great leeway to communities to up hold their own standards as the constitution intended.
Where "conservative judiciary" is to be understood to mean "a judiciary that agrees with me", rather than a judiciary that respects the text of the Constitution.
John Carson
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
I am entirely consistent.
In your dreams.
Stan Shannon wrote:
However, if my community were to disagree with me and assert that some forms of speech serve no political purpose and are merely designed to harm local standards of civility and morality, than I would bow to the will of the people and expect everyone to adher to those standards.
http://www.codeproject.com/Messages/1086187/Re-jailtime.aspx[^]
Stan Shannon wrote:
Obviously, that would be something that the courts should be very sensitive about, but a conservatie judiciary would tend to allow great leeway to communities to up hold their own standards as the constitution intended.
Where "conservative judiciary" is to be understood to mean "a judiciary that agrees with me", rather than a judiciary that respects the text of the Constitution.
John Carson
John Carson wrote:
In your dreams.
John Carson wrote:
http://www.codeproject.com/Messages/1086187/Re-jailtime.aspx\[^\]
Amazing. Four years ago and exactly the same point I just made yesterday.
John Carson wrote:
Where "conservative judiciary" is to be understood to mean "a judiciary that agrees with me", rather than a judiciary that respects the text of the Constitution.
No, I'm saying precisely the opposite of that. I don't expect the judiciary to promote my opinions. You, along with most others here and elsewhere, are the ones saying the judiciary is obligated to promote a particualr political and social world view - the one you happen to agree with.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
John Carson wrote:
In your dreams.
John Carson wrote:
http://www.codeproject.com/Messages/1086187/Re-jailtime.aspx\[^\]
Amazing. Four years ago and exactly the same point I just made yesterday.
John Carson wrote:
Where "conservative judiciary" is to be understood to mean "a judiciary that agrees with me", rather than a judiciary that respects the text of the Constitution.
No, I'm saying precisely the opposite of that. I don't expect the judiciary to promote my opinions. You, along with most others here and elsewhere, are the ones saying the judiciary is obligated to promote a particualr political and social world view - the one you happen to agree with.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Amazing. Four years ago and exactly the same point I just made yesterday.
Actually, the opposite point. Four years ago only "actual physical harm" should attract the attention of the law. Now it is speech "designed to harm local standards of civility and morality".
John Carson
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Amazing. Four years ago and exactly the same point I just made yesterday.
Actually, the opposite point. Four years ago only "actual physical harm" should attract the attention of the law. Now it is speech "designed to harm local standards of civility and morality".
John Carson
John Carson wrote:
Four years ago only "actual physical harm" should attract the attention of the law. Now it is speech "designed to harm local standards of civility and morality".
No, my personnal opinion, which has not changed at all, remains subordinate to how my community chooses to govern iteself.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
John Carson wrote:
Four years ago only "actual physical harm" should attract the attention of the law. Now it is speech "designed to harm local standards of civility and morality".
No, my personnal opinion, which has not changed at all, remains subordinate to how my community chooses to govern iteself.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
No, my personnal opinion, which has not changed at all, remains subordinate to how my community chooses to govern iteself.
So, as a matter of Constitutional principle, you think local communities (but not the Federal government) should be able to criminalize racist speech. However, your preference as a citizen would be that local communities not criminalize racist speech.
John Carson
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
No, my personnal opinion, which has not changed at all, remains subordinate to how my community chooses to govern iteself.
So, as a matter of Constitutional principle, you think local communities (but not the Federal government) should be able to criminalize racist speech. However, your preference as a citizen would be that local communities not criminalize racist speech.
John Carson
John Carson wrote:
So, as a matter of Constitutional principle, you think local communities (but not the Federal government) should be able to criminalize racist speech.
The federal government has no constitutional authority to label one form of speech vs another unless the constitution is amended to provide for it. But, historically, the US has always had local ordinances in virtually every little town outlawing certain offensive forms of speech, and no one ever got bent out of shape about it. So, it isn't a matter of what I think, it is simply an historic fact. Now obviously, one man's political speech is another man's offensive rant, so the courts have to be there to distinquish, but there has never until recently been any blanket disregard for community standards by the courts.
John Carson wrote:
However, your preference as a citizen would be that local communities not criminalize racist speech.
Yes, just as I would also prefer they not criminalize abortion, homosexuality or many other issues. Given the opportunity, I would argue that people be allowed to freely express their sentiments about race even if it is offensive.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.