Reply With Quote
rich rich irony that the ultimate arbiter of truth in the proposed scenario is in effect, the government.
courts would ultimately decide which political truths are true and which are "pernicious lies"
what got misrepresented?
do you think the government ought to have civil and criminal actions against citizens for political speech, or not?
rich rich irony that the ultimate arbiter of truth in the proposed scenario is in effect, the government.
courts would ultimately decide which political truths are true and which are "pernicious lies"
Political speech in general, no.
Political speed that is slander. Yes.
Look up the definition of slander before you continue please. Stop assigning it as hurt feeling.
Good article by Glenn Greenwald:
Rahm Emanuel’s dangerous free speech attack
Interesting to peruse the comments, Greenwald's taking a lot of heat on this one, and responding to the uhm, confused with his usual aplomb:
Imagine a CEO that stated that Blacks or Jews or Catholics do not deserve equal rights. Imagine that said CEO gave money to hate groups dedicated to making life miserable for other, more "acceptable" minorities. Could a community say THAT is unwelcome??
GG:They can say it's "unwelcome." They can't use state power to punish people for the crime of believing it.
This is called "free speech".
But people like you so believe in your own Goodness that you think your views are en led to be enshrined as official state positions and that anyone with different views shouldn't just be condemned, but punished.
Of course, many people who oppose same-sex marriage believe exactly the same thing. When they succeed in getting their local officials to ban any supporters of same-sex marriage from opening businesses -- on the ground that Christian values are Deeply Important -- you will have no ground whatsoever to object to this.
the sound of you crying about this is my lullaby.
nighty nite, WC
Not crying at all. Just not worth arguing a point when the word itself has a different meaning to you than it does me.the sound of you crying about this is my lullaby.
nighty nite, WC
Did you look up the word slander I wonder? Maybe that's why you are withdrawing.
I am speaking of slander. Not a song. If it's true, then it's not slander. No matter how harmful the truth may be, to be slander requires that it is a lie.
the government can't sue citizens for slander. nor should it be able to. that's a terrible idea, WC. it's one of your all time worst, tbh.
So we differ in opinion. Agree with that? I agree the government cannot, by current law, do so. What I don't know, is if it would be uncons utional or not. If it isn't uncons utional, then I say we should prosecute for slander.
What about political races? Don't you hate the flat out lies that each sides uses against one another? Wouldn't elections be so much cleaner of any negative campaigning had to be honest, with no slander?
it's untraditional to prosecute that in the USA. that's a good enough reason for me.
(if politics is too mendacious and nasty for you, tough : politics ain't beanbag.)
I love the attack ads, tbh, they're hilarious..... I still get a kick out of Willard's horrible rendition of "America the Beautiful"....
face it WC, lies and slander are the norm not the exception in politics. abolish them and you abolish politics as we know it. the idea that the government policing truth in political campaigns would be some kind of improvement on the existing state of affairs, would be risible if it weren't so harshly and obviously authoritarian.
This is why Greenwald is among the best and most important writers going right now.
How bad has the hatred gotten?
In Defense of Chick-Fil-A
Mother Jones is defending Chick-Fil-A.
Here's the thing buddy. If you don't want to be the personification of the holocaust -- and be taken remotely seriously -- you shouldn't wildly pontificate about you don't know and then refuse to familiarize yourself with the details when you get called out.
Last edited by vy65; 07-27-2012 at 02:15 PM.
You know that little silly practice of adding "...in bed" to the fortunes you get at Chinese restaurants.
Every time I read something like this from you or the other trolls in this forum, I just add, "...by trolls."
Makes me smile.
Thought I'd share.
Try it with me, if it helps.
yep, calling fwdt useless because of his views was definitely troll worthy.
Primary reason why Repugs and corps want to keep all Super PAC (corporate) donors secret, to avoid, in McConnell's anti-DISCLOSE reasoning: threats, violence, retaliation from Human-Americans.
Chick-Fil-A's Brand Approval Rating Plummets After Anti-Gay Controversy
Chick-fil-A's anti-gay marriage stance has gotten some high-profile support by way of Mike Huckabee, Rick Santorum, Sarah Palin and other conservative lawmakers. But among their longtime customers, it's a much different story.
Polling organization YouGov found that the Atlanta-based chain's brand approval ratings have plummeted in the wake of Chick-fil-A President Dan Cathy's controversial remarks earlier this month. YouGov also reports that the company's overall consumer brand health among fast food eaters has dropped to its lowest levels since mid-August 2010 in the wake of the media firestorm.
Just before Cathy's interview was published, Chick-fil-A's Index score was 65, well above the Top National Quick Service Restaurant (QSR) Sector average score of 46. Just four days later, however, Chick-fil-A's score had fallen to 47, while last week, the chain had a score of 39, compared to the Top National QSR Sector average score of 43.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...comm_ref=false
Last edited by boutons_deux; 07-31-2012 at 12:24 PM.
"Franchise". Look it up.
Cathy; ".......we know that it might not be popular with everyone, but thank the Lord, we live in a country where we can share our values and operate on biblical principles."
Well, not so much.
Teysha, I apologize I'm not really up-to-date on this thread. Can you elaborate on your point in regards to franchises?
While most stores might be independent franchises, they are leasing rights to the brand, and with the brand comes anything positive or negative that the brand may do.
I'd be curious to see if any franchisees file suit against Chick-Fil-A if they see a big drop in sales (not saying such a suit has or doesn't have merit).
And I agree with the notion that being bigoted against bigots still means you are a bigot.
I'm pretty sure a franchisee contracts to, and pays for, the franchisor to keep the brand's image up.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
