Reply With Quote
because its an overly simplistic view
Is the poll of politicians or of regular people? If it's politicians then you'd have a point. If it's just regular people wound up by the terrible work of mainstream media then not so much.
You don't need to insert word into my statement if you understand my statement.
because its an overly simplistic view
Redundant and vague.
agreed
but seriously... one's worldview typically has more than one issue. defining yourself by one is just very limiting. it would also lower your standards as far as electing representatives... "i dont care what he does about issues A-Y, as long as he agrees with me on Z"
you keep throwing this republican thing around as if it's going to stick one day. get off your high horse already. this is why i can't stand so many of your hive mind brothers and sisters. a whole lot of losers in your club.
MSM(left & right) today is nothing more than what RealityTV is, crap entertainment and only that. to sit here and claim otherwise is laughable.
i'm insecure? lmao couch psychologist. you should probably stop mistaking my lame attempts at humor as a segue for your diagnosis of me dr. disaster.
both are more probable than you can imagine.
On what do you base your claim that [the threat of right wing views on press freedom] lies in the future and not currently?
The bracketed insertion is an editorial convention, meant to replace "they" or other pronouns with specific notations for clarity, so that continuity of subject is maintained. Please at any time clarify any error.
The poll was of the general Republican population.
Again, you dodged yet another question.
I think at this point I have seen enough of your arguments to get that you don't really care about the truth. People who care about what is true don't dodge honest, fair questions, in my experience.
Pity.
its that adorable thing koriwhat does when he claims not to be right wing as if we all haven't observed his posting history here for the past few months
same guy, who when pressed to answer what a "real liberal" is basically just described conservatism
Hard to tell if he is just too incompetent to know that he is a conservative Republican or being actively disingenuous. My bet is the latter, but just barely.its that adorable thing koriwhat does when he claims not to be right wing as if we all haven't observed his posting history here for the past few months
D'Souza
Your brackets are not incorrect (at least I don't recall any). It's just not really necessary.
My statement kind gave you my answer. I don't think that's the view of politicians. I don't even know how strongly the people polled really believe that. It's easy to say that to a question. It's a different animal if that's on the table. Regardless at face value the answers are concerning. If these are strongly held positions it will become a threat in the future. At the moment that's not my biggest concern.
The thing is most of threat from either side varies based on a few situational factors. If media, late night shows, actors, etc were so heavy on one side you'd start to get a similar response from the left. The right also disagrees with free speech like burning flags or critiquing police. Those free speech examples are limited in application though. That's how a threat can be curtailed by situation. In comparison the things that that fire up the left is often subjective and applicable in a broad variety of situations. Examples of that include racism, sexism, etc. These can be applied on numerous topics. And therefore the left utilizes it to shutdown a number of things. At the moment they've basically branded everything conservative as racist. The situations are limitless for the subjective application.
Proud boy trying to destroy free speech.
You were complaining about your ideology having it's view challenged and generally tried to put yourself on the cross. it is what it is.
None of that has anything to do with your not being a . Who cares where you are from or why you are here? I know i don't.
Not all even though you guys like to wave your hands at the anecdotes.
No I wasn't. Don't put different words in my mouth. I explained WHY I am embracing hearing opposing views. You respond that you don't care yet lie some more. I could really care less if you call me a . I bring up valid points, you respond with hogwash and call me names while saying you don't care. Sounds like a poster for a safe space.
I really doubt you have the testicular for ude to go out of the way to put yourself in the opposing trenches to learn.
Wh
Watch out for Fuzzy. He might call you a sophist piece of , which is especially devastating.
Debatable, tbh... as it says on the link, the case law is mixed. Plus, the situation needs to cause government intervention to silence the speech. ie: A shouting match isn't a Heckler's veto, nor is the 'fear' that speech might be interrupted (ie: action cannot be taken preemptively, since it would actually silence potentially lawful speech).
Again, people that face a crowd do it at their own risk. There's plenty of massive safe spaces to exercise their speech that don't include the possibility of confrontation.
When a public school shuts down an event because of it, there’s your govt action
sure, but I was addressing the claim that "people merely disrupting aren't really exercising free speech"...
that's true. i should have been more specific, that i was referring to people that disrupt to the point where the speech/meeting is forced to be cancelled
like when ann coulter's speech was cancelled at berkeley because they were worried about protesters, and that fear was based on what happened when milo was supposed to appear
The election of a half-black man as president peeled away the thin veneer covering the deep streak of racism at the heart of the Republican party and by extension "conservatism" itself. I watched the right spend eight years attacking Obama using all sorts of OVERTLY racist bull . I could fill pages and pages of this discussion with quotes, articles, and various tea party morons holding signs to support that.
Not all conservatives, or even most, are racist. But almost all white racist are conservatives. IF it goosesteps like a Nazi, "Heil Hitler"s like a Nazi, and holds torchlight marches about Jews like a Nazi, its a Nazi. You just can't successfully carry out the Southern Strategy and not have that leave its stain on the conservative movement.
You can whine all you like about this, but if you can't accept the truth that actual Nazis are running under the Republican banner, but not the Democrats, then you are being willfully naïve.
That naiveté strikes me as vastly more dangerous and a threat than any group of posting college kids.
In theory, the conservative principles of individual responsibility and traditional morality are color-blind.
But race often distorts their application. When conservative politicians talk about reducing “dependency” on government, they usually mean reliance on programs like food stamps, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, housing assistance, and Medicaid, all of which disproportionately benefit African Americans. They pay less attention to the roughly $20 billion a year that the federal government pays farmers. Or the 1872 law that allows mining companies to lease federal land for $5 an acre and keep whatever they dig up. Or Supplemental Security Income, otherwise known as disability. These forms of dependency, which offer outsize benefits to white people, elicit comparatively little right-wing outrage.
Similarly, many conservatives demanded harsher sentencing during the largely African American crack epidemic, yet now show far less enthusiasm for imprisoning opioid addicts—most of whom are white. For years, conservatives tried to preserve the traditional family by outlawing same-sex marriage. They didn’t try to outlaw heterosexual divorce. Senator Ted Cruz has called defending religious freedom his “life’s passion.” But not when it comes to Muslims. In 2015, he reintroduced the Muslim Brotherhood Terrorist Designation Act, which could have, among other things, empowered the government to close mosques.
There are, to be sure, right-leaning intellectuals who would welcome the uniform application of conservative tough love. But advocating the mass imprisonment of white opioid users, the end of farm subsidies, and a crackdown on easy divorce would likely break the Republican Party. So GOP politicians often end up demanding more self-reliance and moral responsibility from black, female, LGBT, and immigrant Americans than from their own white, male, straight, native-born supporters. “Racism,” Ta‑Nehisi Coates has written in these pages, “is not merely a simplistic hatred. It is, more often, broad sympathy toward some and broader skepticism toward others.” It is exactly this racialized disparity in sympathy and skepticism that plagues many conservative policies today.
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine...igotry/544128/
Also from the above article, an acknowledgement of liberal faults in this area:
Before calling conservatives bigots, liberals should remember something about their own ideology: Progressivism is progressive. It seeks ever-greater moral advance. That means that if liberals have their way, the list of things considered discriminatory will continue to grow. In August, as a rash of localities debated whether to take down statues of Confederate General Robert E. Lee, Trump was mocked for tweeting, “Robert E Lee, Stonewall Jackson—who’s next, Washington, Jefferson?” But it’s logical to suspect that liberals, seeking to make America ever less racist, might go from uprooting statues of the generals who fought to defend slavery to challenging the uncritical veneration of the slaveholders who founded America. Indeed, just three days before Trump’s tweet, Al Sharpton had suggested that the Jefferson Memorial be denied public funds.
Given conservatives’ instinct to conserve, liberals cannot reasonably expect them to instantly declare bigoted something they have long considered acceptable. John Corvino, a philosophy professor at Wayne State University, defines bigotry as “stubborn and unjustified contempt toward groups of people, typically in the context of a larger system of subordination.” The word stubborn is key: What matters is how willing people are to shift their views in response to new information. Liberals have the right to ask that conservatives, when confronted with evidence of the irrationality and immorality of their opinions about, for instance, gay Americans, move toward supporting equal rights. But liberals don’t have the right to expect conservatives to move at the same speed they do. Therein lies the unfairness of Mozilla’s forcing Eich out for having donated to an anti-gay-marriage campaign in 2008, four years before even Barack Obama fully endorsed gay marriage.
I think the bigger threat is that the party in power pushes inherently racist policies, obvious to their own selective disregard for people of color.
Last edited by RandomGuy; 05-03-2018 at 02:37 PM.
So, setting aside the -posting from some peeved college students, let's discuss the threat of right-wing political correctness, and how directly damaging that is to the country.
[Fox News Furor over daring to challenge supply side orthodoxy]
This is a threat, because this is how the conservative movement's many intellectual failures drive bad policies. This quashing of an opposing viewpoint denies conservatism some valuable negative feedback on bad policy.
This bad policy isn't happening at some nebulous ill-defined "future". It is happening NOW.
Last edited by RandomGuy; 05-03-2018 at 02:35 PM.
The further existential threat of Republican political correctness is the complete closing ranks on the President as if he is some imperial president, who should be immune to criticism, no matter how mild.
This political correctness DIRECTLY threatens the Republic, because it puts the interest of a political party ahead of the county. By suppressing any kind of meaningful criticism, they have shut down any oversight of the executive branch, which is the job of Congress.
Paul Ryan pretty much admitted as much:
House Speaker Paul Ryan warned that Democratic gains in November’s congressional elections could make it impossible to get anything accomplished and expose President Donald Trump’s administration to more aggressive oversight.
Should Republicans lose control of either the House or Senate, “you’ll have gridlock, you’ll have subpoenas,” with the whole legislative system “shutting down,” Ryan said Wednesday in Beverly Hills, California, at the annual Milken Ins ute Global Conference.
Scott Benen put it best:
What the retiring House Speaker seemed to suggest was that Democrats, if given any meaningful authority in Congress, would take steps to hold the president accountable for his actions.
Or put another way, Ryan wants voters to back Republican candidates in order to ensure that the pro-Trump cover-up can continue on Capitol Hill. “Vote GOP in 2018,” the slogan effectively goes, “We’re against oversight and accountability for Republican presidents.”
The right's political correctness shuts down ANY criticism of their president, and that is DANGEROUS.
yall can keep blowing each other all yall want but it still doesn't make me a republican nor a democrat. both sides ing suck and so do the sheep that follow.its that adorable thing koriwhat does when he claims not to be right wing as if we all haven't observed his posting history here for the past few months
truth is, yall's progressive asses won't let yall believe anyone is tired of your and so they must be aligned conservative. little do yall know, yall aren't progressive in the least let alone liberal. yall are the scourge of this world!
What political ideology most closely reflects your actual political views?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions