The major drawback of any legislation is that it can be used to remove our freedom. When the idea of “political correctness” was first introduced, it was meant as a guideline for those of us who desired to live in peace with our neighbors. “Hate Speech” seems to have been an outgrowth of the desire to reduce “hate crimes” since they are intimately related. Unfortunately, those who hide behind laws instead of truly learning to live in peace with their neighbors have allowed the legislators to infringe on our basic freedoms. I am old enough to remember a time when a verbal insult could result in a slap across your face and the community at large would laugh at you if you tried to press charges. Rudeness was not socially acceptable and it didn’t occur to us to reward rude people. Now slapping a rude person earns you jail time and a year’s probation. Odd thing is, we have more violence and hate speech now than we ever had then. Laws don’t keep us safe. Being good neighbors keeps us safe. You cannot legislate morality and any attempt to do so results in the loss of personal freedom.
-ALW
Mark Chiang
04-02-2008, 10:26 AM
What is it parents tell kids? "Use your words!" It seems like we haven't come very far.
While I'd agree any legislation can limit our freedom, I'd point out the same can be said about morality, and of course you're bound to have disagreements over different versions of it as well. The standards you set on whatever level has both the potential to limit your freedom and to "keep you safe" - it's kind of the nature of limitations and adhering to a rigid structure. I for one endeavor to be less rigid to adapt to the situation at hand, it tends to encourage freedom of mind and emotion. It seems unrealistic to return to a simpler structure, so challenging as it may be to work with a structure with a higher degree of complexity AND dysfunction, it can only improve our ability to adapt if we try to work with it.
Valley Oak
04-02-2008, 12:36 PM
Excellent reasoning!
Thank you,
Edward
What is it parents tell kids? "Use your words!" It seems like we haven't come very far.
While I'd agree any legislation can limit our freedom, I'd point out the same can be said about morality, and of course you're bound to have disagreements over different versions of it as well. The standards you set on whatever level has both the potential to limit your freedom and to "keep you safe" - it's kind of the nature of limitations and adhering to a rigid structure. I for one endeavor to be less rigid to adapt to the situation at hand, it tends to encourage freedom of mind and emotion. It seems unrealistic to return to a simpler structure, so challenging as it may be to work with a structure with a higher degree of complexity AND dysfunction, it can only improve our ability to adapt if we try to work with it.
thewholetruth
04-05-2008, 07:04 AM
I don't agree at all. The problem is that parents aren't walking the walk anymore. Integrity, dignity, rigorous honesty - esPECially rigorous honesty - are all out the door with Baby Boomers in favor of whatever floats your boat. Kids today have no decent role models, not even in their homes. Who gives a crap what parents "tell kids"? It's NEVER been about what parents tell them. It's always been about how parents actually live their lives and treat each other. So the Baby Boomer generation, in love with Self and alcohol and pot and other medication, are the crappiest role models yet, which is why this generation of kids is the most lost ever, a generation of addicts, lost sexually, no self esteem at all. Self esteem doesn't come from Self, ya know. It comes from living a life of integrity and dignity, truly feeling good about oneself because of practicing principles like being rigorously honest, doing it with love, treating others with respect/compassion/tolerance/patience, managing a little self-discipline, sacrificing for others sometimes, secret selfless acts of kindness, setting and working toward goals - that is the stuff that self-esteem is made of. Baby Boomers collectively are the most selfish, self-centered, drug/alcohol addicted generation in Denial that America has ever had, and we are raising children who are worse than us.
There is NO excuse for giving away our most vital of freedoms, the freedom of speech. NO excuse is valid. We're leaving our children an inheritance of crap if it doesn't come with freedom of speech, and guess what? Our largely pot head, alcoholic, deluded generation just gave that freedom away, trying to keep people's feelings from being hurt. When our children ever actually study American history, they're gonna be pissed when they learn that we used to be able to express ourselves openly in this country. They'll wonder what that was like.
Don
What is it parents tell kids? "Use your words!" It seems like we haven't come very far.
While I'd agree any legislation can limit our freedom, I'd point out the same can be said about morality, and of course you're bound to have disagreements over different versions of it as well. The standards you set on whatever level has both the potential to limit your freedom and to "keep you safe" - it's kind of the nature of limitations and adhering to a rigid structure. I for one endeavor to be less rigid to adapt to the situation at hand, it tends to encourage freedom of mind and emotion. It seems unrealistic to return to a simpler structure, so challenging as it may be to work with a structure with a higher degree of complexity AND dysfunction, it can only improve our ability to adapt if we try to work with it.
Mark Chiang
04-05-2008, 08:34 AM
That is not what I meant. I was not commenting on what kids are taught by parents, but rather that idea of "using your words" to encourage kids to talk about things rather than physical acting out like hitting, although of course parenting is an important issue in itself.
My main point was how a fixed structure of any type, be it physical or mental has the double-edged sword of providing safety (or at least familiarity) as well as being a limitation on one's freedom. Now obviously, when it comes to parenting you have to have some structure - otherwise there would be nothing to do and you just let the kid raise him/herself which of course wouldn't work very well. However, in the context of having a dialogue of meaningful exchange as adults, it is just a matter of keeping an open mind in order to understand, so as to have a more meaningful interchange, rather than a mutual monologue of guy A says this and B says that, and nobody listens to the other. You have no obligation to subscribe to the others values, but chances are you're also in a better position to make a convincing argument by understanding the others point of view.
I should have been clearer and offered examples, and I suppose I should make the basic distinction of structures that are natural to human beings and others that are only additional burdens that create division and conflict - in interpersonal exchange, for example. Clearly there are some patterns that, although being limitations to freedom (in an absolute sense, ie we don't have wings to fly like a bird) it provide safety in a very real sense. But when it comes to specific intellectual views, it is often a matter of strong feelings and very little exchange of ideas or coming to any understanding. You start seeing ad hominem arguments that attack the person and all sorts of information that actually has nothing to do with the subject under discussion, and there is a tendancy for *that* to spiral out of control so that it becomes personal rather than about the larger issue at hand - although of course the persons involved FEEL that's more important in that moment. This is what I would consider an additional burden, an unnecessary structure that only serves to divide.
And actually, having said that I will even concede this kind of ego defensive behavior is even natural to some extent, but I should hope it is also something we outgrow. One would hope you no longer need someone else to tell you to "use your words" as a mature adult, and if you do it's dialogue that is actually meaningful rather than simply an expression of hate, including the passive-aggressive type.
So in terms of the concerns you bring up here, I actually agree in that if there is to be a self esteem that naturally arises from being a mature individual, it is certainly not based on a small-minded narcissistic focus on one's own "happiness" as an individual, without regard for the whole. In fact if the only concern a person really has is feeling good and avoidance of anything less, (which amounts to avoiding a very real and pretty big part of life) there isn't much of a self to have any esteem over, be it high or low. This would be an example of what I meant by hanging on to a simpler structure, because unless one was a very sophisticated and high-functioning narcissist, such selfish concerns tend to be rather simple and only operate on the level of stimulus-response. Even without looking at it from a moral standpoint, it is just not particularly intelligent.
But I don't want to end on a note that only focuses on the state of the individual, because as well meaning and even well thought out as some ideas may be, without mutual dialogue it always runs the risk of being a limited viewpoint that leaves something out. If there is going to be any kind of cooperative effort we can't look at it in terms of "who can come up with the right answer", if the "who" in question is an individual. We have to work together to come up with the answer.
I don't agree at all. The problem is that parents aren't walking the walk anymore. Integrity, dignity, rigorous honesty - esPECially rigorous honesty - are all out the door with Baby Boomers in favor of whatever floats your boat. Kids today have no decent role models, not even in their homes. Who gives a crap what parents "tell kids"? It's NEVER been about what parents tell them. It's always been about how parents actually live their lives and treat each other. So the Baby Boomer generation, in love with Self and alcohol and pot and other medication, are the crappiest role models yet, which is why this generation of kids is the most lost ever, a generation of addicts, lost sexually, no self esteem at all. Self esteem doesn't come from Self, ya know. It comes from living a life of integrity and dignity, truly feeling good about oneself because of practicing principles like being rigorously honest, doing it with love, treating others with respect/compassion/tolerance/patience, managing a little self-discipline, sacrificing for others sometimes, secret selfless acts of kindness, setting and working toward goals - that is the stuff that self-esteem is made of. Baby Boomers collectively are the most selfish, self-centered, drug/alcohol addicted generation in Denial that America has ever had, and we are raising children who are worse than us.
There is NO excuse for giving away our most vital of freedoms, the freedom of speech. NO excuse is valid. We're leaving our children an inheritance of crap if it doesn't come with freedom of speech, and guess what? Our largely pot head, alcoholic, deluded generation just gave that freedom away, trying to keep people's feelings from being hurt. When our children ever actually study American history, they're gonna be pissed when they learn that we used to be able to express ourselves openly in this country. They'll wonder what that was like.
Don
Mark Chiang
04-05-2008, 08:58 AM
In looking at the title again, it occurs to me we might consider hateful thought vs. freedom of thought - since speech is just thoughts expressed. Hateful thought would tend to be rather single minded - it is against whatever the object of hate is. Freedom of thought on the other hand brings to my mind the full spectrum of the capabilities of the human mind. Aside from specialization in a certain field where someone just has more expertise, it would also involve the full range of possibilities. Hate, on the other hand is limited to only one and negating that one possibility.
thewholetruth
04-05-2008, 09:43 AM
The term "hate speech" was the object of this thread initially. Granted, it stems from "hate thought". However, the PC community that tries to protect their feelings doesn't acknowledge any problem with hate thought. They just have a problem with us having the right to express those thoughts.
PC, in and of itself, is an apt example of those who aren't intelligent enough to really think things through, but stop short of the big picture, restricted and limited by FEELINGS and THOUGHTS, which they deem of most importance. In reality, feelings and thoughts are often random, always temporary, and oftentimes the result of incomplete/inaccurate information. Amazing to me that some folks actually let them (feelings and thoughts) be the guiding force behind their actions, ultimately driving them through LIFE. That's called reacting to life, btw, rather than being proactive in one's life. Those proactive in life have recognized that thoughts and feelings just ARE, and aren't a very good foundation for facilitating my next comment or action. :wink:
Which, of course, is where prayer comes in, the seeking of higher wisdom and understanding. But I digress...again.
Don
In looking at the title again, it occurs to me we might consider hateful thought vs. freedom of thought - since speech is just thoughts expressed. Hateful thought would tend to be rather single minded - it is against whatever the object of hate is. Freedom of thought on the other hand brings to my mind the full spectrum of the capabilities of the human mind. Aside from specialization in a certain field where someone just has more expertise, it would also involve the full range of possibilities. Hate, on the other hand is limited to only one and negating that one possibility.
Mark Chiang
04-05-2008, 10:11 AM
Well I suppose we might look at it in terms of horizontal and vertical dimensions, your typical random thoughts and deeper/higher thought (or if you like, where the thought comes from - as thought is an expression of something else just as speech tends to be an expression of thought) which is reflected in gaining some perspective, seeing patterns in the big picture. Although the former may be inclusive, without some organizational principle it tends to amount to amassing data with little understanding.
Of course I wouldn't want to sound like I'm poo-pooing both thoughts and feelings, it's just a matter of whether you're putting the cart before the horse or however that saying goes.
Although I'm not a Christian, if you were to use that as the definition of prayer it is certainly a reasonable one. For that matter some may take issue with the idea of prayer only when in a Judeo-Christian context, possibly a reaction to experiences while growing up - but if it's Tibetan Buddhists or something there may be a very different attitude. There again the structure or form could be limiting or distracting, (specifically a failure to acknowledge the role one's own thoughts and feelings play in the interaction) the bottom line is whether the intent is a deeper understanding.
Braggi
04-05-2008, 10:49 AM
I don't agree at all. The problem is that parents aren't walking the walk anymore. Integrity, dignity, rigorous honesty - esPECially rigorous honesty - are all out the door with Baby Boomers in favor of whatever floats your boat. Kids today have no decent role models, not even in their homes. ...
Speak for yourself and your own kids. My child lives with good role models, has a close (and large) circle of good role model adult friends and a whole lot off peers who are living their lives in integrity and honesty the likes of which I never experienced at their ages. They not only speak their minds, there is a lot going on in those minds that never would have happened 43 years ago when I was their age.
Kids are so much more sophisticated and aware now then they ever were before, it's amazing you, Don, could be missing out on that.
Freedom of speech is about a lot more than the freedom to spew racist, sexist, homophobic vitriol. It's about the ability to develop sophisticated models of relating and complex systems of interacting and being able to communicate that to your peers. Our kids have come a long way and to ignore all that is to condemn the future through ignorance of the valuable reality that exists and the precious resource that is our younger generation.
... So the Baby Boomer generation, in love with Self and alcohol and pot and other medication, are the crappiest role models yet, which is why this generation of kids is the most lost ever, a generation of addicts, lost sexually, no self esteem at all. ...
Wow. What community do you live in? Do you get all your information from sitcoms on TV? You seem to live in a reality that is very far off from the one I live in.
... Self esteem doesn't come from Self, ya know. It comes from living a life of integrity and dignity, truly feeling good about oneself because of practicing principles like being rigorously honest, doing it with love, treating others with respect/compassion/tolerance/patience, managing a little self-discipline, sacrificing for others sometimes, secret selfless acts of kindness, setting and working toward goals - that is the stuff that self-esteem is made of. ...
OK, so we agree on some of the most important things in life. I know a lot of kids with healthy, well earned self esteem. My kid's school is full of them, and a few losers, but that will always be the case.
... Baby Boomers collectively are the most selfish, self-centered, drug/alcohol addicted generation in Denial that America has ever had, and we are raising children who are worse than us. ...
I think there is a lot of that going on. I also think there is a lot of healing going on from alcohol and drug addiction that has been passed down for many generations. I think this is the first generation to look at the problem rationally and honestly. It was always in the closet before us. I think a lot of children are doing it better than their parents ever did. My wife and I certainly are. Almost all of our friends are. To ignore that is ... sad.
... There is NO excuse for giving away our most vital of freedoms, the freedom of speech. NO excuse is valid. We're leaving our children an inheritance of crap if it doesn't come with freedom of speech, and guess what? ...
Don, you've been challenged on this more than once and I don't recall seeing an answer: what things would you like to say that you can't?
I would offer that it's our "conservative" misadministration taking away freedom of speech in this country. I don't say a lot of what I used to be able to say in emails because I know they are being monitored. It's not about PC. It's about appearing on "terrorism" watch lists which I understand are now about 900,000 strong. And once you get on, you never get off, because there is no mechanism for removing people; unless a trip to Gitmo can be considered removal.
Hate speech is alive and well and coming from the White House on a daily basis. Freedom of speech is curtailed, not by the preachers of PC, but by an increasingly noxious and intrusive government that wishes to control our very thoughts.
Set your sights on reality, Don, and maybe you'll be able to do something healthier than complain.
-Jeff
MsTerry
04-05-2008, 11:10 AM
.
There is NO excuse for giving away our most vital of freedoms, the freedom of speech. NO excuse is valid. We're leaving our children an inheritance of crap if it doesn't come with freedom of speech, and guess what? Our largely pot head, alcoholic, deluded generation just gave that freedom away, trying to keep people's feelings from being hurt. When our children ever actually study American history, they're gonna be pissed when they learn that we used to be able to express ourselves openly in this country. They'll wonder what that was like.
Don
Yes Don, just like Braggi, I'd like to know what you are not able to say. Maybe it is the way you say it or the time and place you say it.
The "right" to offend is not the same as freedom of speech.
Common decency has now been replaced with constant confrontation.
thewholetruth
04-05-2008, 11:38 AM
Jeff, I hope you can get over the need to personally attack me when what you're responding to is my comments. Of course, it seems to be the road most traveled here on this board, so, really, whatever. It is what it is here.
"Speak for yourself and your own kids."
I'll speak about anyone I want, Jeff. LOL It's pretty arrogant of you to speak to me that way. Who died and made you the Speech Police? I'm speaking in general, so you needn't be so defensive that you become offensive, like you did here. I've got two girls who graduated recently from high school, Jeff. I've got 8 recent years of a close up view of other people's kids from two different high schools, bro. My girls were also active in the largest dance studio in Santa Rosa for 12 years, so I got to observe, meet and get to know many kids from all over the area, and outside the area. I don't just spew crap out of my ass, Jeff, like you're about to do with your next comment (see your next set of quotes). My observations are just that: observations, not unfounded opinions.
"Freedom of speech is about a lot more than the freedom to spew racist, sexist, homophobic vitriol."
Perhaps you could clarify where you pulled that comment out of, Jeff. I'm not tracking with you here. That is, I don't see where your comment is relevant, as no one here has ever suggested otherwise. Can you clarify, or was it just more defensiveness to the point of offensiveness? If it's that, I understand.
"What community do you live in?"
Rincon Valley, Jeff.
"Do you get all your information from sitcoms on TV?"
I don't watch sitcoms, Jeff. Is that what sitcoms are about these days?
"You seem to live in a reality that is very far off from the one I live in."
And you seem to live in a reality where you give yourself permission to be rude and insulting without anyone having provoked you. I agree, I must live in a very different reality than you. I praise God for that.
"Don, you've been challenged on this more than once and I don't recall seeing an answer: what things would you like to say that you can't?"
And I've answered more than once, Jeff. Try to keep up, bro. I answered that question already, and I answered it when YOU asked it. Perhaps you aren't really interested in COmmunication, as long as you get your licks in, or you would have read my response already, Jeff. Here, let me answer your question again: Anything I want, Jeff. That's what I would like to say that I can't. Anything I want. I want FREEDOM of speech back for ALL OF US, Jeff. It's gone now.
"I would offer that it's our "conservative" misadministration taking away freedom of speech in this country. I don't say a lot of what I used to be able to say in emails because I know they are being monitored. It's not about PC. It's about appearing on "terrorism" watch lists which I understand are now about 900,000 strong. And once you get on, you never get off, because there is no mechanism for removing people; unless a trip to Gitmo can be considered removal."
LOL Sorry, Jeff, but that just sounds like classic Liberal paranoid propaganda. Do you really think you might end up on some "Terrorism Watch List"? LOL I've never once even considered the possibility regarding anything I've ever posted or emailed to anyone. Perhaps you have reason to worry about that. I don't know what kinds of things you email to people. Re: "...a trip to Gitmo..." LOL You're right, Jeff. We live in two completely different realities. No one I know has ever been paranoid about anything like that. THAT fear is not remotely close to reality, where I live.
"Hate speech is alive and well and coming from the White House on a daily basis."
Quite the accusation, Jeff. So since it's "on a daily basis", why don't you educate some of the ignorant masses and post some "hate speech...coming from the White House" yesterday? Or some "hate speech" from the White House the day before, perhaps? I'm CHALLENGING you now to back up your accusation with proof of hate speech from the White House "on a daily basis", and I look forward to reading your quotes.
"Set your sights on reality, Don, and maybe you'll be able to do something healthier than complain."
Set your sights on God, Jeff, and maybe you won't be so rude to people who have done nothing to earn your angst. It's just message board, bro, where people are able to - lo, SUPPOSED TO - exchange views and opinions. No one's throwing rocks at your house, Jeff. Perhaps try praying before you respond next time. I know it helps me temper my comments when I pray first. :wink:
Don
My child lives with good role models, has a close (and large) circle of good role model adult friends and a whole lot off peers who are living their lives in integrity and honesty the likes of which I never experienced at their ages. They not only speak their minds, there is a lot going on in those minds that never would have happened 43 years ago when I was their age.
Kids are so much more sophisticated and aware now then they ever were before, it's amazing you, Don, could be missing out on that.
Freedom of speech is about a lot more than the freedom to spew racist, sexist, homophobic vitriol. It's about the ability to develop sophisticated models of relating and complex systems of interacting and being able to communicate that to your peers. Our kids have come a long way and to ignore all that is to condemn the future through ignorance of the valuable reality that exists and the precious resource that is our younger generation.
Wow. What community do you live in? Do you get all your information from sitcoms on TV? You seem to live in a reality that is very far off from the one I live in.
OK, so we agree on some of the most important things in life. I know a lot of kids with healthy, well earned self esteem. My kid's school is full of them, and a few losers, but that will always be the case.
I think there is a lot of that going on. I also think there is a lot of healing going on from alcohol and drug addiction that has been passed down for many generations. I think this is the first generation to look at the problem rationally and honestly. It was always in the closet before us. I think a lot of children are doing it better than their parents ever did. My wife and I certainly are. Almost all of our friends are. To ignore that is ... sad.
Don, you've been challenged on this more than once and I don't recall seeing an answer: what things would you like to say that you can't?
I would offer that it's our "conservative" misadministration taking away freedom of speech in this country. I don't say a lot of what I used to be able to say in emails because I know they are being monitored. It's not about PC. It's about appearing on "terrorism" watch lists which I understand are now about 900,000 strong. And once you get on, you never get off, because there is no mechanism for removing people; unless a trip to Gitmo can be considered removal.
Hate speech is alive and well and coming from the White House on a daily basis. Freedom of speech is curtailed, not by the preachers of PC, but by an increasingly noxious and intrusive government that wishes to control our very thoughts.
Set your sights on reality, Don, and maybe you'll be able to do something healthier than complain.
-Jeff
thewholetruth
04-05-2008, 11:45 AM
"I'd like to know what you are not able to say."
Anything I want, MsTerry. Time was that I could stand on a street corner and say anything I wanted to say. Not today. My freedom to say whatever I want is gone. Freedom of speech in America is now gone.
Don
Yes Don, just like Braggi, I'd like to know what you are not able to say. Maybe it is the way you say it or the time and place you say it.
The "right" to offend is not the same as freedom of speech.
Common decency has now been replaced with constant confrontation.
Braggi
04-05-2008, 03:12 PM
"I'd like to know what you are not able to say."
Anything I want, MsTerry. Time was that I could stand on a street corner and say anything I wanted to say. Not today. My freedom to say whatever I want is gone. Freedom of speech in America is now gone.
Don
That's not an answer, Don, and you know it.
It's no wonder you have trouble seeing the other side of COmmunication.
-Jeff
shellebelle
04-05-2008, 03:21 PM
Now AINT THAT THE TRUTH!
Sign it sister (so to speak)!
And here is where so many go wrong! Why would I ever agree with someone who berates me? Its amazing to me that verbal abuse is a crime yet adults do it often in pubic to each other and beyond and call it "freedom of speech".
So how about we try some new ways the old are well OLD. Tired, worn out. And why not some new ideas. I mean make love not war is sweet but doesn't help anyone. How about starting a fund to help veterans? Worried about homeless - volunteer.
Move to action and stop the words. Words are nice but actions always speak louder!
Common decency has now been replaced with constant confrontation.
thewholetruth
04-05-2008, 03:35 PM
Wrong, sir. That's MY answer, Jeff. I still remember when I saw the term "hate speech" first used in the paper. I was outraged, because I saw the writing on the wall. Ray Charles coulda' seen the writing on the wall: NO MORE FREE SPEECH.
Please don't tell me my answers aren't answers, Jeff. They're mine, sir, not yours to make.
"It's no wonder you have trouble seeing the other side of COmmunication. "
3 fingers pointing right back atcha' there, Jeff. See em' now? :wink:
Don
That's not an answer, Don, and you know it.
It's no wonder you have trouble seeing the other side of COmmunication.
-Jeff
Valley Oak
04-05-2008, 03:35 PM
This is where I need to learn a big lesson. Whenever I read something outrageous, I find it nearly impossible not to criticize the other person for it. Keeping in mind what ShelleyRae said in her post, below, I only succeed in alienating people when I respond that way and close the door to understanding and agreement or at least getting them to look at my point of view.
Thanks,
Edward
Now AINT THAT THE TRUTH!
Sign it sister (so to speak)!
And here is where so many go wrong! Why would I ever agree with someone who berates me? Its amazing to me that verbal abuse is a crime yet adults do it often in pubic to each other and beyond and call it "freedom of speech".
So how about we try some new ways the old are well OLD. Tired, worn out. And why not some new ideas. I mean make love not war is sweet but doesn't help anyone. How about starting a fund to help veterans? Worried about homeless - volunteer.
Move to action and stop the words. Words are nice but actions always speak louder!
theindependenteye
04-05-2008, 03:43 PM
>>"I'd like to know what you are not able to say."
>Anything I want, MsTerry. Time was that I could stand on a street corner and say anything I wanted to say. Not today. My freedom to say whatever I want is gone. Freedom of speech in America is now gone.
Do you not understand why some of us might truly see this as a non-answer? For myself, I wasn't asking this question just as as a rhetorical flourish. What I gather from your response is (a) that you believe people once could say virtually anything anywhere in America, (b) that homosexuals invented the term "hate speech" and passed it into law, and therefore, (c) all free speech in America is gone. Sorry, but you've lost me on that one.
But perhaps to offer you some comfort: After Katrina, the director of Repent America, said, "We take no joy in the death of innocent people, but we believe that God is in control of the weather. The day Bourbon Street and the French Quarter was flooded was the day that 125,000 homosexuals were going to be celebrating sin in the streets. We're calling it an act of God." In 1998, Pat Robertson warned Orlando, Fla., that a gay celebration the city hosted would bring the wrath of God upon the city: "terrorist bombs, earthquakes, tornadoes, and possibly a meteor." In 2001, Jerry Falwell blamed gays and lesbians, feminists, abortionists, and the ACLU for 9/11: "I point the finger in their face and say, 'You helped this happen.'"
Given that none of these people has thus far been fined or imprisoned, I think your concern for your own safety may be somewhat exaggerated. I should warn you, though, that if you make your way into a speech by a top government official and shout, "End the War" or even so much as reveal a teeshirt saying that, you'll be in the slammer pretty damn fast.
So your blanket statement of deprivation is really out of sync with the world as I know it. If I'm too dumb or inexperienced to see the obvious, then it's probably not worth your while talking to me -- we'll just frustrate one another.
Peace & joy--
Conrad
MsTerry
04-05-2008, 03:56 PM
Please don't tell me my answers aren't answers, Jeff. They're mine, sir, not yours to make.
Don
nananananananananananananananananananananaana:Nana:
Exsqueeze me for interrupting this exchange of intellectual insults, but can someone tell me who is telling who not to tell someone what not to tell to someone?
theindependenteye
04-05-2008, 04:03 PM
>>However, the PC community that tries to protect their feelings doesn't acknowledge any problem with hate thought. They just have a problem with us having the right to express those thoughts.
I thought "PC" was a term used by right-wingers to label any idea they disagreed with as coming from "those who aren't intelligent enough to really think things through." So I guess the "community" part means all of us on the list who aren't intelligent enough to agree with you. Which truly makes me wonder why you waste your time with us.
>>Amazing to me that some folks actually let them (feelings and thoughts) be the guiding force behind their actions, ultimately driving them through LIFE. Which, of course, is where prayer comes in, the seeking of higher wisdom and understanding.
So we shouldn't be guided by what we feel, nor should we be guided by trying to think things through. We should be guided instead by God's response to our prayers, and, if I'm not extrapolating unduly, by our particular denomination's interpretation of scriptures on the relevant issue.
So I gather we're not really debating you, we're debating God. I feel a bit outmatched. But seriously, have you asked God, in your prayers, whether in fact your freedom of speech is as dead as you claim? And how would you know if He said, "No, you're wrong." Do you hear actual words spoken, or do you just feel it in your heart? And if so, how is *your* feeling different from and more valid than *my* feeling?
-Conrad
thewholetruth
04-05-2008, 04:27 PM
"Do you not understand why some of us might truly see this as a non-answer?"
Brother, I'm the one who brought this up, and this is why I brought it up: I can't say anything I want in public anymore. Perhaps you wanted me to say something you could complain about, like "I hate gays" (which I don't). Sorry, Conrad, that's not my answer because that's not my problem. My problem is about losing our freedom of speech. We had to give up one of our nation's most precious freedoms so that gay folks don't get their feelings hurt. That about sums it up. It's not about feminists. They don't throw that term around like gays do. Neither do Blacks or Hispanics or Jews or Whites, so it's not about race. It's used in America, almost exclusively, to protect homosexuals from getting their feelings hurt. I think we paid too high a price just to protect 1-3% of the population's feelings, which seem to get hurt anyway, despite the protection of the "hate speech" label.
"For myself, I wasn't asking this question just as as a rhetorical flourish."
And I wasn't answering it as if I thought it were rhetorical flourish. I told you the truth.
"What I gather from your response is (a) that you believe people once could say virtually anything anywhere in America, (b) that homosexuals invented the term "hate speech" and passed it into law..."
Incorrect, sir. I'm not sure who "invented the term", but attorneys for homosexuals are the folks who use it most.
"...and therefore, (c) all free speech in America is gone. Sorry, but you've lost me on that one."
Correction, Conrad. Please pay attention to what I write, and stop bastardizing my comments. I didn't say "all free speech in America is gone". I said FREEDOM OF SPEECH IS NO LONGER A RIGHT here in America. It's no longer one of our rights.
Are you clear now? Are you going to pretend you don't see a difference between the two?
Perhaps we won't be able to have an intelligent, respectful conversation and may, as you say, frustrate one another. I don't know why that is (it's usually a person's choice, IMO), but it seems so borderline as it is.
Don
>>"I'd like to know what you are not able to say."
>Anything I want, MsTerry. Time was that I could stand on a street corner and say anything I wanted to say. Not today. My freedom to say whatever I want is gone. Freedom of speech in America is now gone.
Do you not understand why some of us might truly see this as a non-answer? For myself, I wasn't asking this question just as as a rhetorical flourish. What I gather from your response is (a) that you believe people once could say virtually anything anywhere in America, (b) that homosexuals invented the term "hate speech" and passed it into law, and therefore, (c) all free speech in America is gone. Sorry, but you've lost me on that one.
But perhaps to offer you some comfort: After Katrina, the director of Repent America, said, "We take no joy in the death of innocent people, but we believe that God is in control of the weather. The day Bourbon Street and the French Quarter was flooded was the day that 125,000 homosexuals were going to be celebrating sin in the streets. We're calling it an act of God." In 1998, Pat Robertson warned Orlando, Fla., that a gay celebration the city hosted would bring the wrath of God upon the city: "terrorist bombs, earthquakes, tornadoes, and possibly a meteor." In 2001, Jerry Falwell blamed gays and lesbians, feminists, abortionists, and the ACLU for 9/11: "I point the finger in their face and say, 'You helped this happen.'"
Given that none of these people has thus far been fined or imprisoned, I think your concern for your own safety may be somewhat exaggerated. I should warn you, though, that if you make your way into a speech by a top government official and shout, "End the War" or even so much as reveal a teeshirt saying that, you'll be in the slammer pretty damn fast.
So your blanket statement of deprivation is really out of sync with the world as I know it. If I'm too dumb or inexperienced to see the obvious, then it's probably not worth your while talking to me -- we'll just frustrate one another.
Peace & joy--
Conrad
shellebelle
04-05-2008, 04:27 PM
Good catch Ed, I hope a few more catch it also.
The main point is "Move to Action".
To quote a man being remembered this past week "I have a dream!" yet he certainly wasn't sitting ideal and waiting for someone else to fulfill it for him.
This is where I need to learn a big lesson. Whenever I read something outrageous, I find it nearly impossible not to criticize the other person for it. Keeping in mind what ShelleyRae said in her post, below, I only succeed in alienating people when I respond that way and close the door to understanding and agreement or at least getting them to look at my point of view.
Thanks,
Edward
thewholetruth
04-05-2008, 04:28 PM
Wow. It had to take an effort to respond like you did. LOL
I'll get back to you and I promise I'll clarify everything for you. You've jumped to so many conclusions that it amazes me.
Heading to MidiMusic right now, before they close. :wink:
Don
>>However, the PC community that tries to protect their feelings doesn't acknowledge any problem with hate thought. They just have a problem with us having the right to express those thoughts.
I thought "PC" was a term used by right-wingers to label any idea they disagreed with as coming from "those who aren't intelligent enough to really think things through." So I guess the "community" part means all of us on the list who aren't intelligent enough to agree with you. Which truly makes me wonder why you waste your time with us.
>>Amazing to me that some folks actually let them (feelings and thoughts) be the guiding force behind their actions, ultimately driving them through LIFE. Which, of course, is where prayer comes in, the seeking of higher wisdom and understanding.
So we shouldn't be guided by what we feel, nor should we be guided by trying to think things through. We should be guided instead by God's response to our prayers, and, if I'm not extrapolating unduly, by our particular denomination's interpretation of scriptures on the relevant issue.
So I gather we're not really debating you, we're debating God. I feel a bit outmatched. But seriously, have you asked God, in your prayers, whether in fact your freedom of speech is as dead as you claim? And how would you know if He said, "No, you're wrong." Do you hear actual words spoken, or do you just feel it in your heart? And if so, how is *your* feeling different from and more valid than *my* feeling?
I have a feeling I'm going to be sorry I engaged you in this nonsense, but here I go anyway:
"I thought "PC" was a term used by right-wingers to label any idea they disagreed with as coming from "those who aren't intelligent enough to really think things through.""
That's not my understanding, Conrad. I understand PC to mean "whatever codepends people into voting for/liking you, regardless if it's intelligent, logical or reasonable". But that's just my take on it. You may be right.
"So I guess the "community" part means all of us on the list who aren't intelligent enough to agree with you."
No, that's not accurate. The "community" part of "PC community" is anyone who subscribes to that codependent philosophy, which may or may not be anyone on this board. I wasn't referring to you, Conrad, or anyone else on this board specifically. I was referring to the PC community at large.
"Which truly makes me wonder why you waste your time with us."
Whether or not it's a waste of time will have much to do with whether or not you want to keep it real and engage in intelligent discussion, or whether you prefer to let the discussion digress into common Liberal vs. Conservative, Right vs. Left rhetoric, name-calling and false accusations. At this point, I don't think you're giving yourself enough credit here, because I don't consider this a waste of time yet.
"So we shouldn't be guided by what we feel, nor should we be guided by trying to think things through."
That isn't what I said. I said that people who let their thoughts and feelings dictate their actions are oftentimes way lost and spend their lives reacting to life, not being proactive in their lives, Conrad.
"We should be guided instead by God's response to our prayers, and, if I'm not extrapolating unduly, by our particular denomination's interpretation of scriptures on the relevant issue."
That isn't what I said. I said that prayer and meditation, coupled with thoughtful consideration is a far more productive method of living one's life, transforming a reactionary life into a more purposed life. I said nothing about denominations or relevant issues. Why would you conclude such ridiculous crap as that, Conrad, unless you...oh, I see. Unless you were just engaging in the common Liberal vs. Conservative, Right vs. Left rhetoric, name-calling and false accusations that I mentioned a moment ago. *sIgH*
"So I gather we're not really debating you, we're debating God."
So right about here, your brain appears to have shut down completely and you seem to be running solely on feelings, with very little thoughtfulness before you type. I say that because I've seen you post relatively intelligent and respectful stuff here before now, but this certainly can't be considered "intelligent discussion" nor respectful, now can it. (Rhetorical question, Conrad. That means the answer is obvious.)
"I feel a bit outmatched."
Perhaps you are at this point. You've certainly digressed to a level of discussion wherein you are the only participant left.
"But seriously, have you asked God, in your prayers, whether in fact your freedom of speech is as dead as you claim? And how would you know if He said, "No, you're wrong." Do you hear actual words spoken, or do you just feel it in your heart? And if so, how is *your* feeling different from and more valid than *my* feeling?"
Wow. Perhaps we can discuss this when you wake up, Conrad. This is a far cry from intelligent or respectful. Have I offended you in some way, by posting my thoughts, observations and opinions here, Conrad? If so, what specifically did I say that caused you to become so belligerent all of a sudden? If I owe you an apology for offending you, I'll surely offer it up, if only you'll tell me where that point of offense actually took place.
An intelligent person, if truly interested in understanding that which he does not understand, would ask an intelligent question in order to achieve clarification. Your conclusionary b.s., however, isn't worthy of a response, sir.
Perhaps that was your intention.
Don
>>However, the PC community that tries to protect their feelings doesn't acknowledge any problem with hate thought. They just have a problem with us having the right to express those thoughts.
I thought "PC" was a term used by right-wingers to label any idea they disagreed with as coming from "those who aren't intelligent enough to really think things through." So I guess the "community" part means all of us on the list who aren't intelligent enough to agree with you. Which truly makes me wonder why you waste your time with us.
>>Amazing to me that some folks actually let them (feelings and thoughts) be the guiding force behind their actions, ultimately driving them through LIFE. Which, of course, is where prayer comes in, the seeking of higher wisdom and understanding.
So we shouldn't be guided by what we feel, nor should we be guided by trying to think things through. We should be guided instead by God's response to our prayers, and, if I'm not extrapolating unduly, by our particular denomination's interpretation of scriptures on the relevant issue.
So I gather we're not really debating you, we're debating God. I feel a bit outmatched. But seriously, have you asked God, in your prayers, whether in fact your freedom of speech is as dead as you claim? And how would you know if He said, "No, you're wrong." Do you hear actual words spoken, or do you just feel it in your heart? And if so, how is *your* feeling different from and more valid than *my* feeling?
-Conrad
thewholetruth
04-05-2008, 05:14 PM
Hey Ed, I thought you were ignoring me. Remember those 20 or 30 posts about how you were ignoring me? Did you change your mind, or is this directed at what someone else has said? *Polite smile*
>>You've certainly digressed to a level of discussion wherein you are the only participant left.
Sorry.
>>Wow. Perhaps we can discuss this when you wake up, Conrad.
Not likely.
>>Have I offended you in some way, by posting my thoughts, observations and opinions here, Conrad?
No.
>>An intelligent person, if truly interested in understanding that which he does not understand, would ask an intelligent question in order to achieve clarification.
Tried it, failed. You feel I miss your point and I feel you miss mine. Since we've started to repeat ourselvss, it's time for me to retire from the field. Ok, fine, we've all lost our free speech.
-Conrad
Valley Oak
04-05-2008, 11:06 PM
I hope you don't mind my asking you for a little help here but what would be a good, first 'Move to Action?'
Thanks again,
Edward
Good catch Ed, I hope a few more catch it also.
The main point is "Move to Action".
To quote a man being remembered this past week "I have a dream!" yet he certainly wasn't sitting ideal and waiting for someone else to fulfill it for him.
thewholetruth
04-06-2008, 07:19 AM
I understand.
Don
>>You've certainly digressed to a level of discussion wherein you are the only participant left.
Sorry.
>>Wow. Perhaps we can discuss this when you wake up, Conrad.
Not likely.
>>Have I offended you in some way, by posting my thoughts, observations and opinions here, Conrad?
No.
>>An intelligent person, if truly interested in understanding that which he does not understand, would ask an intelligent question in order to achieve clarification.
Tried it, failed. You feel I miss your point and I feel you miss mine. Since we've started to repeat ourselvss, it's time for me to retire from the field. Ok, fine, we've all lost our free speech.
-Conrad
thewholetruth
04-06-2008, 07:30 AM
"Ok, fine, we've all lost our free speech."
We no longer have the right of freedom of speech, Conrad. Time was when we could lay claim to that: "We have freedom of speech in America". That's simply no longer true. Today, the truth has become "We can speak out about many things in America". Huge difference there.
Hope that clarifies my point for you. I can see that I haven't been able to communicate it to you in a way that you understand it.
Don
>>You've certainly digressed to a level of discussion wherein you are the only participant left.
Sorry.
>>Wow. Perhaps we can discuss this when you wake up, Conrad.
Not likely.
>>Have I offended you in some way, by posting my thoughts, observations and opinions here, Conrad?
No.
>>An intelligent person, if truly interested in understanding that which he does not understand, would ask an intelligent question in order to achieve clarification.
Tried it, failed. You feel I miss your point and I feel you miss mine. Since we've started to repeat ourselvss, it's time for me to retire from the field. Ok, fine, we've all lost our free speech.
-Conrad
Braggi
04-06-2008, 09:47 AM
... We no longer have the right of freedom of speech, Conrad. Time was when we could lay claim to that: "We have freedom of speech in America". That's simply no longer true. Today, the truth has become "We can speak out about many things in America". Huge difference there.
Hope that clarifies my point for you. I can see that I haven't been able to communicate it to you in a way that you understand it. ...
If anyone reading here understands what Don is talking about, please educate me. I have no idea what Don wants to say that he feels he can't. He mentions the lawyers of homosexuals, as if they were somehow preventing him from speaking. I don't get it.
The only speech that I know of that will now get you arrested, possibly without due cause or process, has to do with the US federal government and their "War on Terror," which, of course, is just another wing of the Law Enforcement Growth Industry which is a part the Military Industrial Political Complex. If there are restrictions on freedom of speech, it is the current White House and their lackeys in Congress that are to blame, not the lawyers of homosexuals.
But just for clarity, Don, since you are anonymous on this board, can you give us an example of what you mean since none of us can figure it out? Just go ahead and give us an example of what you are afraid to say. You can even use blanks or [censored] or whatever if there are certain words we'll just have to guess at.
I'm baffled.
-Jeff
Valley Oak
04-06-2008, 11:44 AM
Sure, I'll explain it to you. I remember, when I was growing up (I was born in 1961) in Marin County, it was commonplace for me to hear people publicly make statements berating homosexuals as 'faggots,' 'queers,' 'perverts,' and people who were sick and could overcome their illness but that they had to really want help in order to get better. Well, of course, being a child, I believed every single lie society told me. By the time the gay movement became strong in San Francisco in the late 70's, I started to question the 'wisdom' of my parents and the rest of the larger conservative and religious community and the Repugnant Party and about half of the Demicracked Party.
It was also common for me to hear, also as a child, from almost anyone that 'all women are whores,' or 'bitch,' or 'slut' and just generally see and hear women treated below second class.
It was also just as common for me to hear, also in public and from strangers as well as known people, racial slurs such as 'nigger,' 'kike,' 'whop,' 'dago,' 'wetback,' and many, many more insults to anyone who was not a W.A.S.P.
I remember when my family (that is, my parents, my bother, and myself) moved into 'liberal' Greenbrae (Barbara Boxer's neighborhood, even to this day) back in 1965, our driveway was spray painted 'Spics go home.'
I HAVE TO AGREE WITH DON ON THIS ONE! People these days just can't say things the way they used to anymore. Fuck! It's all because of these goddamn minorities who have gotten all the political power and are practicing a totalitarian, communist, gay, pot-smoking, anti-american, anti-christian agenda! And with the help of the liberal media (let's not talk about Rupert Murdoch, Fox News, Limbaugh, televangelists, and who really owns and runs all of the media in the U.S.).
What we need is VERY STRONG RIGHT WING, CHRISTIAN president to clean up this country once and for all! Bring back our heritage and assert our patriotism and bring our pride back!
Wait a minute...who is the president of the U.S. right now? And for the last eight, insufferable years? Hmmm. something here's not quite right....hmmm, I don't get it. I thought we had a 'real american' in the White House? Gee, I wonder why we are in such a mess right now in this country even though we had one of our good old boys in there really moving shit around. Hmmm, can't quite figure this one out.
I know! Let's get Ron Paul for president and we will really see a mess! Wow!
RON PAUL FOR PRESIDENT!
Edward
If anyone reading here understands what Don is talking about, please educate me. I have no idea what Don wants to say that he feels he can't. He mentions the lawyers of homosexuals, as if they were somehow preventing him from speaking. I don't get it.
The only speech that I know of that will now get you arrested, possibly without due cause or process, has to do with the US federal government and their "War on Terror," which, of course, is just another wing of the Law Enforcement Growth Industry which is a part the Military Industrial Political Complex. If there are restrictions on freedom of speech, it is the current White House and their lackeys in Congress that are to blame, not the lawyers of homosexuals.
But just for clarity, Don, since you are anonymous on this board, can you give us an example of what you mean since none of us can figure it out? Just go ahead and give us an example of what you are afraid to say. You can even use blanks or [censored] or whatever if there are certain words we'll just have to guess at.
I'm baffled.
-Jeff
thewholetruth
04-06-2008, 01:35 PM
"I have no idea what Don wants to say that he feels he can't."
Gosh, Jeff, it's ironic that you still feel "baffled" when you just offered one example of what I cannot say anymore. :): Like you said, I can no longer criticize my government, Jeff, without the risk of being arrested. I also can't preach the Gospel in public without running the same risk of being arrested for "hate speech". It's happening around the country today, Jeff. People are being arrested for criticizing our government and for preaching the Gospel. That didn't used to be the case, Jeff. Time was I could stand in a public forum and do BOTH if I wanted to, all day every day, and never be arrested. But since attorneys lobbied for "hate crime" and "hate speech" legislation, now we risk being arrested if we say certain things in public. Freedom of speech is no longer one of our rights in America, Jeff.
As an aside, are you familiar with the term "intellectual dishonesty", Jeff?
Don
If anyone reading here understands what Don is talking about, please educate me. I have no idea what Don wants to say that he feels he can't. He mentions the lawyers of homosexuals, as if they were somehow preventing him from speaking. I don't get it.
The only speech that I know of that will now get you arrested, possibly without due cause or process, has to do with the US federal government and their "War on Terror," which, of course, is just another wing of the Law Enforcement Growth Industry which is a part the Military Industrial Political Complex. If there are restrictions on freedom of speech, it is the current White House and their lackeys in Congress that are to blame, not the lawyers of homosexuals.
But just for clarity, Don, since you are anonymous on this board, can you give us an example of what you mean since none of us can figure it out? Just go ahead and give us an example of what you are afraid to say. You can even use blanks or [censored] or whatever if there are certain words we'll just have to guess at.
I'm baffled.
-Jeff
Braggi
04-06-2008, 02:35 PM
"I have no idea what Don wants to say that he feels he can't."
Gosh, Jeff, it's ironic that you still feel "baffled" when you just offered one example of what I cannot say anymore. :): Like you said, I can no longer criticize my government, Jeff, without the risk of being arrested. ...
OK, so are you connecting that fact with homosexuals' lawyers? I see no connection. Please help me understand.
... People are being arrested for criticizing our government and for preaching the Gospel. That didn't used to be the case, Jeff. Time was I could stand in a public forum and do BOTH if I wanted to, all day every day, and never be arrested. ...
Preaching the "Gospel," eh? I did a little Google search and came up with this gem: https://morallaw.org/blog/?p=234
You'll have to read the article to understand the next comment, but I agree the preacher shouldn't have been arrested, although I might have cheered the police had I been there to witness it. On second thought, I probably would have asked the police to leave him alone. It was rude of them to bust him. The fact is, he should have been breaking the law, and by that I mean it should have been illegal for him to use an amplifier in the public square without a permit. But that's a local issue. Anyway, I don't think this case was about what he was saying. I think he was guilty of being an asshole in public which is only sometimes illegal. Mostly, I think you're wrong that it's illegal to preach any "Gospel" in public. If it is illegal, please quote me a law supporting that position, not individual cases such as what I found.
You will note that the jerk (my opinion) in question was not arrested for preaching anything in particular. He was arrested for violating a noise ordinance and disorderly conduct.
... But since attorneys lobbied for "hate crime" and "hate speech" legislation, now we risk being arrested if we say certain things in public. Freedom of speech is no longer one of our rights in America, Jeff. ...
No, I still don't agree with you. In fact, I don't know of any "hate speech" legislation. Please refer me to some that I might become educated. I do know of a whole load of hate crime legislation that has been passed, and I have spoken out against it each time I had the opportunity. I think hate crime legislation is unnecessary since there already is a crime that can be prosecuted. I say give judges the latitude they used to have in sentencing and it becomes a non issue. The very idea of hate speech legislation is repugnant to me, so on that you and I agree.
... an aside, are you familiar with the term "intellectual dishonesty", Jeff? ...
Yes. I think you use it often in your posts. No, I won't go back and read them and quote examples except to say this: you have only complained about homosexuals and their "agenda" when it comes to hate speech. Now you offer that you can't criticize the Government or preach. Nonsense! Get honest with us Don! Tell us the truth man!
What is it you really want to say that you feel you can't?
That you haven't come clean on.
-Jeff
thewholetruth
04-06-2008, 05:39 PM
Jeff, if you're truly interested in intelligent dialogue, I believe the discussion would be looking different than it does. I suspect you're just venting some of your life's frustration here, like many do on discussion boards like this.
"You'll have to read the article to understand the next comment, but I agree the preacher shouldn't have been arrested..."
Public nuisance and/or noice ordinances aren't related to freedom of speech, Jeff. Do a search in Canada for preachers/ministers being arrested for letters to the editor as well as public speech. The only incidences I can find on Google are from sources I'm sure you would discount, and I'm not willing to dig any deeper, to look up the local papers and find the articles for you. They're doing it in America, too, Jeff, arresting ministers for preaching the Gospel in public. Someone else acknowledged that here already.
I asked if you were familiar with the term "intellectual dishonesty", and you said: "Yes. I think you use it often in your posts."
If you're truly familiar with what that term means, then man up and show me where I'm guilty of this. I believe everything I post. You, OTOH, pretend not to know things that it's obvious you DO know. THAT is intellectual honesty, Jeff.
"No, I won't go back and read them and quote examples..."
If there were any "examples", you would.
"...except to say this: you have only complained about homosexuals and their "agenda" when it comes to hate speech."
That's correct, because their attorneys are the biggest offenders, Jeff, using the term so frequently in order to try to make a case when their clients feelings are hurt by homophobes. The result of this liberal use of the term is that now the government has stepped in and started arresting people if they "say the wrong thing" and pastors are being arrested for preaching from the parts of the Gospel that offend some homosexuals. Are you trackin' with me yet, Jeff? Homosexuals in Canada are solely responsible for making preaching in public a crime. Not Blacks or Asians or Hispanics or women or racists or pedophiles or Whites or disabled folks, Jeff. It's part of the homosexual agenda to get the Gospel shut down, because they don't like it that homosexuality is clumped in with adultery, lying, stealing, fornicating, cheating, idolizing other gods, etc. Perhaps start doing a little research before you unload your next rounds of opinions, Jeff. I'm starting to think you're not being intellectually dishonest, you're just uninformed.
'Now you offer that you can't criticize the Government or preach. Nonsense! Get honest with us Don! Tell us the truth man! What is it you really want to say that you feel you can't?"
Anything I want, Jeff. I can no longer say anything I want here in America. I no longer have the right that was once called "Freedom of Speech", because we gave it up, in large part, in exchange for trying to protect homosexuals' feelings.
And here we are again, having come full circle...which, btw, is what folks do who use message boards as a place to vent their life's frustrations, rather than as a place to have intelligent discussion and an exchange of ideas.
If you want to go on with this discussion, Jeff, I hope that your next post reflects that you did a little homework on all this. If not, we've said all this (see above) at least twice now.
Don
OK, so are you connecting that fact with homosexuals' lawyers? I see no connection. Please help me understand.
Preaching the "Gospel," eh? I did a little Google search and came up with this gem: https://morallaw.org/blog/?p=234
You'll have to read the article to understand the next comment, but I agree the preacher shouldn't have been arrested, although I might have cheered the police had I been there to witness it. On second thought, I probably would have asked the police to leave him alone. It was rude of them to bust him. The fact is, he should have been breaking the law, and by that I mean it should have been illegal for him to use an amplifier in the public square without a permit. But that's a local issue. Anyway, I don't think this case was about what he was saying. I think he was guilty of being an asshole in public which is only sometimes illegal. Mostly, I think you're wrong that it's illegal to preach any "Gospel" in public. If it is illegal, please quote me a law supporting that position, not individual cases such as what I found.
You will note that the jerk (my opinion) in question was not arrested for preaching anything in particular. He was arrested for violating a noise ordinance and disorderly conduct.
No, I still don't agree with you. In fact, I don't know of any "hate speech" legislation. Please refer me to some that I might become educated. I do know of a whole load of hate crime legislation that has been passed, and I have spoken out against it each time I had the opportunity. I think hate crime legislation is unnecessary since there already is a crime that can be prosecuted. I say give judges the latitude they used to have in sentencing and it becomes a non issue. The very idea of hate speech legislation is repugnant to me, so on that you and I agree.
Yes. I think you use it often in your posts. No, I won't go back and read them and quote examples except to say this: you have only complained about homosexuals and their "agenda" when it comes to hate speech. Now you offer that you can't criticize the Government or preach. Nonsense! Get honest with us Don! Tell us the truth man!
What is it you really want to say that you feel you can't?
That you haven't come clean on.
-Jeff
Lenny
04-06-2008, 06:04 PM
OK, to back Don up a little, and add confusion to this game, I mean flame, my sad history.
Born & raised in the Mission District in S.F. we knew we were "colored". Talked openly about it. Easy to do, and yelled names at other "colored" kids, friends at times, sometimes fighters. Toward the end of the school year, if you were White, you didn't come to school as you would get your ass beat. And it was OK.
All knew, and COULD TALK ABOUT IT.
Not any more.
The whole city was "ethnic" and lived such, and it was OK.
People were "dagos, wops, chinks, mics, injuns, jews, (never met any where we grew up), niggers, spics, greasers, flips, etc". And it was OK, as everyone was proud of their "heritage"
Not any more. At least according to the current establishment. Which is still mainly run and controlled by white folks!
The city was FAMOUS for having homosexuals and it was not a big thing. I TRULY wish it was that way again. They simply lived and were not "out", LOUD & PROUD, and all that crap, and/but most everyone knew who they were and it was a live and let live situation. Oh, and this was in the mid 1950s and early 60's. The Black Cat and other places would have great parades, mostly near Halloween, and the stupids who would shout obscenities were dealt with and quickly removed by the cops, if they were lucky, and they usually were. Life was not "political", it was lived, with all the racial "slurs" given easily and freely. Tone of voice was important. As one did not want to "disrespect" another. But it WAS said.
Not any more.
Everything now is "sensitive" and "subject to review" and scrutinized.
As we get much of our self "identity" from sex and race, BUT now must fit into molds "proscribed" by "professionals" instead of the people we live with, we have lost freedoms.
Personally, I blame it on all the "foreigners" from the East Coast. They found a land of gold, and turned it into one "political" issue after another. Extended family in Berkeley (a truly blue collar town then), but with Mario Salvio and his "freedom of expression" (the word "fuck") went through the university, it all went to pot.
A few years ago a friend showed me a Herb Caen article and The First Picture of a "hippie" from the S.F. Chronicle, around 1965. The photo was a man in the street walking away with no shoes on his feet, and the word HIPPIE!
The machine of media went into full swing. By 1966, summer, 2 million kids in a few blocks of the city! All that meant was "brother" was the new word for "colored". Shortly after it was the word used prior to a fight.
We have lost our freedoms of expression, and in its place are "correct" way to say things, express one's self. And I agree, we need to learn to express ones self correctly. However ENGLISH is not even taught correctly, and simple COURTESY and DECENCY is out, but it has been replaced lawsuits. A paranoid personality, such as my own, would tend to think such mandates were created BY lawyers, as that would give THEM more work in courts, legislation, mediation, contracts, etc.
If we are so stupid, and collectively there is sound evidence, as to dispose of our personal property, as in not renting to ********, then the market forces will cure that! But instead we have law makers telling us.
We have lost some of our freedoms.
And I see, and in a sense, I am glad Dr. King did not live to see the sad outcome, that the "war on poverty, drugs, illiteracy, etc" has produced cities, children, schools, and whole elements of our society disenfranchised.
Hell, I am not "progressive" as I've not witnessed a damn thing government has touched that has gotten better.
When my parents married, it was illegal (that is the government for you) but THE PEOPLE in many places were WELL AHEAD of the government in doing what free people have always done!
Speaking of which, I am going to have a beer.
Oh, and free speech, by definition, must allow for hate speech. It's as stupid as "hate crime" and doing time. Never heard of some one going down for "love crime". Go look up the stats on "hate crime". It makes me laugh.
Thanks for being there to allow such a ranting post.
:2cents:
thewholetruth
04-06-2008, 06:31 PM
Thanks for taking the time to do that, Lenny. That's what I'm talking about. The truth be told, I really believe that no one had to read what you posted in order to know that. Everyone on this board already knows how it went down. Some are just pretending to be ignorant in their effort to make me say what they THINK I'm getting at "I hate queers". LOL But it's not true. What you've said is true. And I think the Boomers have an obligation to straighten this crap out, jerk the remote control from the hands of the PCers and bring back a little personal responsibility to this country.
Ah. But that's just me.
Thanks again, bro.
Don
OK, to back Don up a little, and add confusion to this game, I mean flame, my sad history.
Born & raised in the Mission District in S.F. we knew we were "colored". Talked openly about it. Easy to do, and yelled names at other "colored" kids, friends at times, sometimes fighters. Toward the end of the school year, if you were White, you didn't come to school as you would get your ass beat. And it was OK.
All knew, and COULD TALK ABOUT IT.
Not any more.
The whole city was "ethnic" and lived such, and it was OK.
People were "dagos, wops, chinks, mics, injuns, jews, (never met any where we grew up), niggers, spics, greasers, flips, etc". And it was OK, as everyone was proud of their "heritage"
Not any more. At least according to the current establishment. Which is still mainly run and controlled by white folks!
The city was FAMOUS for having homosexuals and it was not a big thing. I TRULY wish it was that way again. They simply lived and were not "out", LOUD & PROUD, and all that crap, and/but most everyone knew who they were and it was a live and let live situation. Oh, and this was in the mid 1950s and early 60's. The Black Cat and other places would have great parades, mostly near Halloween, and the stupids who would shout obscenities were dealt with and quickly removed by the cops, if they were lucky, and they usually were. Life was not "political", it was lived, with all the racial "slurs" given easily and freely. Tone of voice was important. As one did not want to "disrespect" another. But it WAS said.
Not any more.
Everything now is "sensitive" and "subject to review" and scrutinized.
As we get much of our self "identity" from sex and race, BUT now must fit into molds "proscribed" by "professionals" instead of the people we live with, we have lost freedoms.
Personally, I blame it on all the "foreigners" from the East Coast. They found a land of gold, and turned it into one "political" issue after another. Extended family in Berkeley (a truly blue collar town then), but with Mario Salvio and his "freedom of expression" (the word "fuck") went through the university, it all went to pot.
A few years ago a friend showed me a Herb Caen article and The First Picture of a "hippie" from the S.F. Chronicle, around 1965. The photo was a man in the street walking away with no shoes on his feet, and the word HIPPIE!
The machine of media went into full swing. By 1966, summer, 2 million kids in a few blocks of the city! All that meant was "brother" was the new word for "colored". Shortly after it was the word used prior to a fight.
We have lost our freedoms of expression, and in its place are "correct" way to say things, express one's self. And I agree, we need to learn to express ones self correctly. However ENGLISH is not even taught correctly, and simple COURTESY and DECENCY is out, but it has been replaced lawsuits. A paranoid personality, such as my own, would tend to think such mandates were created BY lawyers, as that would give THEM more work in courts, legislation, mediation, contracts, etc.
If we are so stupid, and collectively there is sound evidence, as to dispose of our personal property, as in not renting to ********, then the market forces will cure that! But instead we have law makers telling us.
We have lost some of our freedoms.
And I see, and in a sense, I am glad Dr. King did not live to see the sad outcome, that the "war on poverty, drugs, illiteracy, etc" has produced cities, children, schools, and whole elements of our society disenfranchised.
Hell, I am not "progressive" as I've not witnessed a damn thing government has touched that has gotten better.
When my parents married, it was illegal (that is the government for you) but THE PEOPLE in many places were WELL AHEAD of the government in doing what free people have always done!
Speaking of which, I am going to have a beer.
Oh, and free speech, by definition, must allow for hate speech. It's as stupid as "hate crime" and doing time. Never heard of some one going down for "love crime". Go look up the stats on "hate crime". It makes me laugh.
Thanks for being there to allow such a ranting post.
:2cents:
Braggi
04-06-2008, 09:03 PM
... What you've said is true. And I think the Boomers have an obligation to straighten this crap out, jerk the remote control from the hands of the PCers and bring back a little personal responsibility to this country. ...
Wow. So, I truly didn't understand Don. You didn't have what it took to tell me, but you can "click OK" when Lenny puts it in words. Amazing.
So, correct me if I'm wrong: you want to call black people niggers, Mexican people spicks, Jewish people kikes, etc. ? And you think the "PC" crowd has taken that "right" away from you? What a laugh!
Don, it was never a right. It was a privilege of whites because the police would back you up if the people you offended wanted a piece of you in revenge. I'd say you have as much right as you ever had. Go ahead and do it. But as I told Ms. Terry in a recent post, we have freedom of speech, just not freedom from the consequences of that speech.
I did search on preachers getting arrested in Canada BTW. This was the most interesting thing I came up with:
"The most inspirational preacher I've come across of late is the Reverend Billy of The Church of Stop Shopping out of New York City. He first came to my attention when he was arrested for preaching Mickey Mouse as the anti-Christ in front of the Disney Store in New York. His latest encounter with the law, it appears, is his arrest for reciting in public the First Amendment of the American Constitution. His current bete noire is the Victoria Secret Company and catalogue, primarily for the number of trees (Canadian trees, it appears!) sacrificed to produce the millions of copies. Reverend Billy is technically a performing artist; he's hasn't been "ordained" by any established religious body but, wow, can this guy preach! Oh for but a portion of his spirit."
Now that's worth preaching about!
-Jeff
PS. Also read up on a few definitions of intellectual honesty, and yup, I was being honest. I thought all you wanted to do was queer bash. :): You, on the other hand, have not come clean by telling us what it is you're afraid to say. (Even though you're anonymous on this board.)
"...Sweden passed an equivalent to Canada's Bill C-250 last year -- a "hate crimes" law that forbids criticism of homosexuality. In a WorldNetDaily article, the author quotes from the church newspaper Kyrkans Tidning, in which the prosecutor in the case, Kjell Yngvesson, justifies the arrest of pastor Green: "One may have whatever religion one wishes, but this is an attack on all fronts against homosexuals. Collecting Bible cites on this topic as he (Pastor Green) does makes this hate speech."... "
I agree, the law is obnoxious. It would never stand in the US, of course, since we have the First Amendment. But the pastor is just as sad as the law. Not so creative in coming up with a sermon. He could have done better than that. He should have been rewarded by his congregation leaving and not coming back, not arrest.
Society has nothing to fear from homosexuality. It's always been with us and always will be. I personally think bisexuality is the healthiest form of sexuality and a growing number of people agree. It's only a matter of time until we, as a culture, grow up and learn to apply the best wisdom of all the cultures. Unless we exterminate ourselves first.
-Jeff
Reportanddeport
04-06-2008, 09:30 PM
There is no such thing as "Hate Speech", there is only speech that people hate. The purpose of "hate crime" laws are to give special protection to certain special classes of people that the government wants to promote. This is like the government giving tax breaks to certain people doing certain activities that the government wants to promote.
I don't know that political correctness was "introduced", but I tend to believe that all societies have had it at all times. But political correctness is nothing more than carefully watching everything you say because you fear a backlash.... a backlash which I am usually willing to bear because I tend to think I have better ideas than most people.:wink:
thewholetruth
04-07-2008, 06:31 AM
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD vAlign=top width="1%" background=https://pics.ebaystatic.com/aw/pics/vit/musical1/left1bkgd_musical1.gif></TD><TD vAlign=top align=left width="99%"><TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="98%" align=center border=0><TBODY><TR vAlign=top><TD><SCRIPT language=JavaScript><!--var currentIndex = 0;var currentIsSuper = true;var superSizeURL = 'https://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=260226046002&indexURL=' + currentIndex + '&photoDisplayType=2#ebayphotohosting';var superSizeGotoURL = 'https://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=260226046002&indexURL=' + currentIndex + '#ebayphotohosting';//--></SCRIPT>"You didn't have what it took to tell me..."
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
Jeff, are you serious?!? LOL Do this, bro: Look right above Lenny's post. Not only do I "have what it takes to tell you", but I DID tell you, clearly and in no uncertain terms.
It appears to me that you're just looking to do battle with me, Jeff. Gosh, that's such an enormous waste of time, typically pursued by the ignorant and/or uneducated, not by intelligent educated guys like us, and I won't waste my time with it. Been there, done that, and the results are always disappointing, IMO, albeit the attackers always seem to enjoy themselves. I've always concluded that they're just venting due to real life frustrations that they aren't able/willing to confront.
I'm so disappointed, Jeff. Not surprised, but disappointed, nonetheless.
Don
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
Wow. So, I truly didn't understand Don. You didn't have what it took to tell me, but you can "click OK" when Lenny puts it in words. Amazing.
So, correct me if I'm wrong: you want to call black people niggers, Mexican people spicks, Jewish people kikes, etc. ? And you think the "PC" crowd has taken that "right" away from you? What a laugh!
Don, it was never a right. It was a privilege of whites because the police would back you up if the people you offended wanted a piece of you in revenge. I'd say you have as much right as you ever had. Go ahead and do it. But as I told Ms. Terry in a recent post, we have freedom of speech, just not freedom from the consequences of that speech.
I did search on preachers getting arrested in Canada BTW. This was the most interesting thing I came up with:
"The most inspirational preacher I've come across of late is the Reverend Billy of The Church of Stop Shopping out of New York City. He first came to my attention when he was arrested for preaching Mickey Mouse as the anti-Christ in front of the Disney Store in New York. His latest encounter with the law, it appears, is his arrest for reciting in public the First Amendment of the American Constitution. His current bete noire is the Victoria Secret Company and catalogue, primarily for the number of trees (Canadian trees, it appears!) sacrificed to produce the millions of copies. Reverend Billy is technically a performing artist; he's hasn't been "ordained" by any established religious body but, wow, can this guy preach! Oh for but a portion of his spirit."
Now that's worth preaching about!
-Jeff
PS. Also read up on a few definitions of intellectual honesty, and yup, I was being honest. I thought all you wanted to do was queer bash. :): You, on the other hand, have not come clean by telling us what it is you're afraid to say. (Even though you're anonymous on this board.)
thewholetruth
04-07-2008, 06:40 AM
"I personally think bisexuality is the healthiest form of sexuality..."
That's an interesting opinion. I'm curious if you base that opinion on facts, Jeff, or if you just got it from the same place most opinions come from. Is it personal experience, a novel notion, or have you actually seen research which supports that conclusion? I didn't realize that one form of sexuality or another might be "healthier" than the rest. :wink: In fact, I'd never even thought about it like that.
"...Sweden passed an equivalent to Canada's Bill C-250 last year -- a "hate crimes" law that forbids criticism of homosexuality. In a WorldNetDaily article, the author quotes from the church newspaper Kyrkans Tidning, in which the prosecutor in the case, Kjell Yngvesson, justifies the arrest of pastor Green: "One may have whatever religion one wishes, but this is an attack on all fronts against homosexuals. Collecting Bible cites on this topic as he (Pastor Green) does makes this hate speech."... "
I agree, the law is obnoxious. It would never stand in the US, of course, since we have the First Amendment. But the pastor is just as sad as the law. Not so creative in coming up with a sermon. He could have done better than that. He should have been rewarded by his congregation leaving and not coming back, not arrest.
Society has nothing to fear from homosexuality. It's always been with us and always will be. I personally think bisexuality is the healthiest form of sexuality and a growing number of people agree. It's only a matter of time until we, as a culture, grow up and learn to apply the best wisdom of all the cultures. Unless we exterminate ourselves first.
-Jeff
Lenny
04-07-2008, 07:51 AM
There is no such thing as "Hate Speech", there is only speech that people hate. The purpose of "hate crime" laws are to give special protection to certain special classes of people that the government wants to promote. :wink:
So all animals are equal, except pigs are more equal?
Thanks G.O.
RIP:2cents:
Lenny
04-07-2008, 08:22 AM
So, correct me if I'm wrong: you want to call black people niggers, Mexican people spicks, Jewish people kikes, etc. ? And you think the "PC" crowd has taken that "right" away from you? What a laugh!
Don, it was never a right. It was a privilege of whites because the police would back you up if the people you offended wanted a piece of you in revenge. I'd say you have as much right as you ever had. Go ahead and do it. But as I told Ms. Terry in a recent post, we have freedom of speech, just not freedom from the consequences of that speech.
Good point, Braggi. The question of "right" is rather large. It was not "right" then, but it was "all right" when appropriate. Sometimes it was "all right" and folks "got it on", and other times it was "all right, enough of that stupid stuff" and all hung their heads, ashamed. What the PC crowd did was "sensitize" everyone, as IF WE weren't aware of it at all!
And we still think it is done either out loud, behind closed doors, or where it really counts, in one's heart and attitude. Better it be said allowed before my face and in the right context, than quietly in your heart, with a smile on your puss. Goethe once wrote something about the English having a warm smile and friendly, great handshake, but stone cold hearts, whereas the Germans were the opposite. Ring 'o truth.
As for consequences in freedom of speech, you sound like you want license, not consequences to freedoms. Major diff. :2cents:
Braggi
04-07-2008, 08:43 AM
<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td background="https://pics.ebaystatic.com/aw/pics/vit/musical1/left1bkgd_musical1.gif" valign="top" width="1%">
</td><td align="left" valign="top" width="99%"><table align="center" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="98%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td><script language="JavaScript"><!--var currentIndex = 0;var currentIsSuper = true;var superSizeURL = 'https://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=260226046002&indexURL=' + currentIndex + '&photoDisplayType=2#ebayphotohosting';var superSizeGotoURL = 'https://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=260226046002&indexURL=' + currentIndex + '#ebayphotohosting';//--></script>"You didn't have what it took to tell me..."
</td></tr></tbody></table>
Jeff, are you serious?!? LOL Do this, bro: Look right above Lenny's post. Not only do I "have what it takes to tell you", but I DID tell you, clearly and in no uncertain terms.
[snip]
I'm so disappointed, Jeff. Not surprised, but disappointed, nonetheless.
</td></tr></tbody></table>
This is what you wrote in that post:
"Anything I want, Jeff. I can no longer say anything I want here in America."
I was hoping you'd be ... brave enough, honest enough, bold enough, man enough, communicative enough ... something enough, to actually give us some examples of what you "want" to say. That's not what you are allowed to say by the tenets of PC (if there was such a thing) but what you actually want to say. That tells me you have something in mind that you bite your tongue over instead of actually saying it. I truthfully did not guess what it was you wanted to say. The only hints you gave were references to gays and their lawyers.
I'm surprised, actually, as well as disappointed to learn that what you actually want to say is racist slurs. Amazed actually. I thought as a culture as well as individuals that we were outgrowing that.
Oh well.
-Jeff
Braggi
04-07-2008, 08:49 AM
"I personally think bisexuality is the healthiest form of sexuality..."
That's an interesting opinion. I'm curious if you base that opinion on facts, Jeff, or if you just got it from the same place most opinions come from. Is it personal experience, a novel notion, or have you actually seen research which supports that conclusion? I didn't realize that one form of sexuality or another might be "healthier" than the rest. :wink: In fact, I'd never even thought about it like that.
Don
Well, it was probably a poor choice of words. I think a better term is "most evolved" form of sexuality. If a majority of our people though it was OK to be lovers with either sex, not practicing necessarily, just giving genuine permission in their hearts, we would be light years ahead in the evolution of the human species. Wouldn't it be nice if there were no arguments over sexuality and it was just never an issue? If health issues were treated the same regardless of the sexuality of the person or the community? Imagine all the resources that could be conserved and all the energy that could be brought to bear on actual problems that affect all our communities.
Just dreaming, I know ...
-Jeff
MsTerry
04-07-2008, 09:19 AM
Don
I have to agree with Jeff.
Why can't you be a man and say what is on your mind!
Stop dancing around like a sissy and act all hurt because you can only say that you can't say what you want to say.
DON MsTerry IS GIVING YOU PERMISSION TO SAY WHAT YOU WANT TO SAY!!
Go for it, let it all out!
People want to know!
This is what you wrote in that post:
"Anything I want, Jeff. I can no longer say anything I want here in America."
I was hoping you'd be ... brave enough, honest enough, bold enough, man enough, communicative enough ... something enough, to actually give us some examples of what you "want" to say. That's not what you are allowed to say by the tenets of PC (if there was such a thing) but what you actually want to say. That tells me you have something in mind that you bite your tongue over instead of actually saying it. I truthfully did not guess what it was you wanted to say. The only hints you gave were references to gays and their lawyers.
I'm surprised, actually, as well as disappointed to learn that what you actually want to say is racist slurs. Amazed actually. I thought as a culture as well as individuals that we were outgrowing that.
"I have to agree with Jeff. Why can't you be a man and say what is on your mind!"
Oh, but I AM a man, and I say EXACTLY what is on my mind, MsTerry.
"Stop dancing around like a sissy..."
Hmmm. I love intelligent dialogue. Oh, wait... That's not it.
"...and act all hurt because you can only say that you can't say what you want to say."
My point wasn't about what I WANT to say. My point was simply an OBSERVATION, which prompted me to say what was on my mind. I made my point eminently clear, MsTerry. There is no longer the right to Freedom of Speech in this country. That was my original statement, prompted by my observation of the facts, Ma'am. My original statement was not prompted by my inability to say what I want.
So joining in with Jeff's baiting (he already admitted that's what he's doing) isn't going to make the bait any more attractive, MsTerry. In fact, I'm surprised you've chosen to go fishing with Jeff about this. I gave you more credit than that, but hey, I've been wrong before...and I'm sure I'll be wrong again one day. :wink:
Don
Don
I have to agree with Jeff.
Why can't you be a man and say what is on your mind!
Stop dancing around like a sissy and act all hurt because you can only say that you can't say what you want to say.
DON MsTerry IS GIVING YOU PERMISSION TO SAY WHAT YOU WANT TO SAY!!
Go for it, let it all out!
People want to know!
MsTerry
04-07-2008, 09:28 PM
I've been wrong before.
Yes Don, you are wrong about this one.
Where you got the notion that freedom of speech used to be better, is beyond me.
What decade are you talking about?
When you were born,1955, they were locking people up for being a communist
When you were 10 they were still killing people for being black and getting away with it scotfree.
When you were 20, they were shooting at people for being against the Vietnam war
Is your brain so fried from all the pot you smoked that you think that everything used to be better???
. There is no longer the right to Freedom of Speech in this country. That was my original statement, prompted by my observation of the facts, Ma'am. My original statement was not prompted by my inability to say what I want.
Don
Can you be more ambiguous?
Do you or don't you have an" inability to say what I want."?
That is the question
Yes or No?
In your profile you indicate that you like it black or white, no gray.
So tell me, is there anything you are not able say?
Yes or no?
If yes, what is it
thewholetruth
04-08-2008, 06:20 AM
"Yes Don, you are wrong about this one."
I disagree.
"Where you got the notion that freedom of speech used to be better, is beyond me."
Um, I got it from growing up in America, and it's not a "notion", it's a fact. Growing up in Sebastopol, I was very well aware of, and appreciated the fact that anyone could say anything on a public street corner or shout it from the rooftop and the worst repercussion was that you might get your assed kicked. No one got arrested for the racist crap the KKK spewed, the antiSemite crap some people spewed or for criticizing our government. We had HUGE rallies objecting to the Vietnam war, and NO ONE EVER got arrested because of WHAT THEY WERE SAYING, MsTerry.
When you were born,1955, they were locking people up for being a communist
But not for what they said in public. They were accused of subversive behavior against the government, and this was during the Cold War.
"When you were 10 they were still killing people for being black and getting away with it scotfree."
But they weren't getting arrested for what they SAID in public.
"When you were 20, they were shooting at people for being against the Vietnam war"
Wrong. They shot no one because of what they SAID. Even at Kent State the students were throwing rocks and tear gas cannisters at National Guardsmen before they shot back. This was NOT because of what the students were SAYING, MsTerry. It was because they were ASSAULTING the National Guard. From Wikipedia: see Monday May 4th https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_State_shootings This wasn't about FREEDOM OF SPEECH. It was about dispersing a crowd who had been rioting and burning buildings FOR DAYS, oh ye of clouded memory, who was attacking National Guardsmen sent to disperse the crowd.
"Is your brain so fried from all the pot you smoked that you think that everything used to be better???"
No, it's not. Is your brain so fried that your head is stuck in the 60s?
"Can you be more ambiguous?"
There's nothing ambiguous about my position. We can no longer say whatever we want in America without risking arrest. That has NEVER been the case in America until some idiot coined the term "hate speech", which IS ambiguous.
"Do you or don't you have an" inability to say what I want."? That is the question Yes or No?"
Now, THAT is ambiguous! LOL What the heck is that supposed to mean? Do I have an inability to say what YOU want?!? WTH?!?
"In your profile you indicate that you like it black or white, no gray."
I didn't indicate any such thing. I said I have a DISTASTE for that place of rationalizing what is wrong which some folks call "the gray area". I don't "like it black or white". It's that the truth IS black or white. It is either true or it's false. It's either right or it's wrong. It's of God or it's of the devil. The gray area is where people try to rationalize doing what is wrong. Words mean something, except in the magic rationalization that goes on in some folks' heads.
"So tell me, is there anything you are not able say? Yes or no? If yes, what is it"
We've already been over this, MsTerry. Is your brain so fried from all that pot you smoke(d) that you can't remember? Two of the most obvious things I cannot say are these: I can't quote some of the Bible in public without risking being accused of and arrested for "hate speech". Why not? Is it because the Blacks/Asians/Whites/Hispanics will accuse me of hate speech? Nooo. Will women accuse me of hate speech? Well, SOME women will, because they don't like Ephesians 5:22, but they always IGNORE Eph 5:21 which tells us ALL to submit to one another:
Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ. (Ephesians 5:21).
</PRE>
No, the fearful libbers and their codependents always IGNORE that scripture completely because it doesn't feed into their victim mentality.
</PRE>
Instead, they call this "hate speech": Wives, submit to your husbands... (Ephesians 5:22).
</PRE>Paul's procedure was to give a general statement that all Christians are to submit to one another. For wives to submit to their husbands is merely an example of the command to "submit to one another."
If we try to think with Paul's Hebrew mind, we see that he specifically says husbands are to submit to their wives' needs. He says
Husbands, love your wives like Christ loved the church and gave himself for her... (Ephesians 5:25).
</PRE>These verses say that the husband must love the wife to the extent that he would die for her -- as Christ died for the church. The words mean that if someone is about to throw a javelin into a woman, her husband has the duty to step in the path of the javelin, to die for her. In Hebrew thinking, the greatest case includes the least. So if the husband has to submit to the wife's needs in the most extreme case, he has to submit to them in the least case also.
So now there are not ONE but TWO cases in which I risk being accused of "hate speech", MsTerry. (1) If women's libbers, lesbians or man-haters want to attack me, they point to scripture and call it "hate speech". (2) If homosexuals don't want to be criticized, they point to scripture and call it "hate speech". And there are other cases now, since the door has been jerked open (key word: jerk) and that is that the government can now take advantage of the legal use of the term "hate speech" and so we risk speaking out against the government now in public places, depending upon the event.
I don't know about you, but to me there's something wrong with that picture, that anyone would trash our right to freedom of speech so that they don't get their feelings hurt. That's what this is about. Hurt feelings.
Lest your brain be so fried from all the pot you smoke(d) that you forget, let me remind you that I'm waiting for your clarification of your statement above: "Do you or don't you have an" inability to say what I want."?
Don Big Smile
Yes Don, you are wrong about this one.
Where you got the notion that freedom of speech used to be better, is beyond me.
What decade are you talking about?
When you were born,1955, they were locking people up for being a communist
When you were 10 they were still killing people for being black and getting away with it scotfree.
When you were 20, they were shooting at people for being against the Vietnam war
Is your brain so fried from all the pot you smoked that you think that everything used to be better???
Can you be more ambiguous?
Do you or don't you have an" inability to say what I want."?
That is the question
Yes or No?
In your profile you indicate that you like it black or white, no gray.
So tell me, is there anything you are not able say?
Yes or no?
If yes, what is it
thewholetruth
04-08-2008, 06:45 AM
You know what my beef really is, MsTerry? That "The Land of the Free" isn't that anymore, thank you very little. They don't even CALL IT THAT anymore in the media, nor do other nations refer to us as such. We USED to be that. Giving up our right to Freedom of Speech has toppled the giant that America used to be, bastion of freedom in a world enslaved by tyrants, dictators and lunatics. Thanks to the lunatics here (referring to the lunatics in this country, not on this board), we're now subject to the same subjective crap citizens of any other nation are subject to, so the bottom line is: watch what you say and where you say it.
Don
Yes Don, you are wrong about this one.
Where you got the notion that freedom of speech used to be better, is beyond me.
What decade are you talking about?
When you were born,1955, they were locking people up for being a communist
When you were 10 they were still killing people for being black and getting away with it scotfree.
When you were 20, they were shooting at people for being against the Vietnam war
Is your brain so fried from all the pot you smoked that you think that everything used to be better???
Can you be more ambiguous?
Do you or don't you have an" inability to say what I want."?
That is the question
Yes or No?
In your profile you indicate that you like it black or white, no gray.
So tell me, is there anything you are not able say?
Yes or no?
If yes, what is it
Braggi
04-08-2008, 08:38 AM
...
Ms. T: "Where you got the notion that freedom of speech used to be better, is beyond me."
Um, I got it from growing up in America, and it's not a "notion", it's a fact. Growing up in Sebastopol, I was very well aware of, and appreciated the fact that anyone could say anything on a public street corner or shout it from the rooftop and the worst repercussion was that you might get your assed kicked. ...
Don, please give some examples of people who have been arrested recently for what they said. Please limit those examples to speech in the United States. I don't recall any examples. I want to learn.
...
Ms. T "When you were born,1955, they were locking people up for being a communist"
But not for what they said in public. They were accused of subversive behavior against the government, and this was during the Cold War.
...
Now you are either showing your ignorance or your intellectual dishonesty. People were being locked up and blackballed for what they said in PRIVATE as well as what they said in public. You can find archives of McCarthy hearings to prove that. I think you know that, actually. People were being harassed and arrested for the books and papers they had in their possession as well as what they said in movies, on radio, in speeches and in print.
...
Ms. T: "When you were 10 they were still killing people for being black and getting away with it scotfree."
But they weren't getting arrested for what they SAID in public. ...
Amazing perspective you have here. Ask Malcolm X and Martin Luther King Jr. both of whom had arrest records and got killed for things they said.
...
Ms. T: "When you were 20, they were shooting at people for being against the Vietnam war"
Wrong. They shot no one because of what they SAID. Even at Kent State the students were throwing rocks and tear gas cannisters at National Guardsmen before they shot back. This was NOT because of what the students were SAYING, MsTerry. It was because they were ASSAULTING the National Guard. From Wikipedia: see Monday May 4th https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_State_shootings This wasn't about FREEDOM OF SPEECH. It was about dispersing a crowd who had been rioting and burning buildings FOR DAYS, oh ye of clouded memory, who was attacking National Guardsmen sent to disperse the crowd. ...
Did you actually read that article? Some students were shot while leaving the scene as the Guardsmen had commanded them. The crowd was neither rioting nor burning at the time of the shootings. They did return some of the tear gas canisters to the Guardsmen the Guardsmen had dropped among the students, but the Guardsmen were protected by gas masks. The burning (of a condemned building) happened the day before. Read up. You'll be smarter, or at least, appear smarter.
The students didn't attack the Guardsmen at the time of the shootings. The shootings were NOT in self defense. They shot into a crowd that was dispersing. Show some intellectual honesty, Don.
...
"Can you be more ambiguous?"
There's nothing ambiguous about my position. We can no longer say whatever we want in America without risking arrest. That has NEVER been the case in America until some idiot coined the term "hate speech", which IS ambiguous. ...
Still don't know what you're talking about. When Lenny talked about racist slurs you agreed that's what can't be said. Is that what you want to say? Please be specific. You're not gaining any respect or clout on this board by constantly avoiding to answer what it is you'd like to say in public. Your comments about preaching are laughable.
Can you please refer me to any laws in the US that have ever been passed against "hate speech?" You keep referring to legal action against speech but you've given no examples of laws or prosecutions.
...
"Do you or don't you have an" inability to say what I want."? That is the question Yes or No?"
Now, THAT is ambiguous! LOL What the heck is that supposed to mean? Do I have an inability to say what YOU want?!? WTH?!?
...
Heh heh heh. A Ms. Terryism. And Ms. Terry gives Mykil a bad time. :):
...
" ... Two of the most obvious things I cannot say are these: I can't quote some of the Bible in public without risking being accused of and arrested for "hate speech". Why not? Is it because the Blacks/Asians/Whites/Hispanics will accuse me of hate speech? Nooo. Will women accuse me of hate speech? Well, SOME women will, because they don't like Ephesians 5:22, but they always IGNORE Eph 5:21 which tells us ALL to submit to one another:
...
OK, you're getting more specific here. Please give examples of people getting arrested and prosecuted for preaching from the Bible. Please recall you own comments that speech is different from "disturbing the peace" type crimes.
...
Instead, they call this "hate speech": Wives, submit to your husbands... (Ephesians 5:22). ...
Who? Who is preventing you from speaking these things? Who has been attacked for it? Who has had the power of government stop them from speaking it? Please be specific since you don't like those fuzzy gray areas.
...
" ... Two of the most obvious things I cannot say are these: [snip]
So now there are not ONE but TWO cases in which I risk being accused of "hate speech", MsTerry. (1) If women's libbers, lesbians or man-haters want to attack me, they point to scripture and call it "hate speech". (2) If homosexuals don't want to be criticized, they point to scripture and call it "hate speech". And there are other cases now, since the door has been jerked open (key word: jerk) and that is that the government can now take advantage of the legal use of the term "hate speech" and so we risk speaking out against the government now in public places, depending upon the event. ...
OK, so? There is a great deal of "Scripture" supported hate speech. Goes on all the time. Lots of hate in "Scripture," much of it coming from "God." I still don't know of any preachers being pulled from their podiums because they quoted God's hate speech.
I don't think you ever made it to the second thing you can't say.
...
I don't know about you, but to me there's something wrong with that picture, that anyone would trash our right to freedom of speech so that they don't get their feelings hurt. That's what this is about. Hurt feelings.
...
OK, perhaps now we're getting somewhere. Who's hurt your feelings Don? Why are you here complaining so much? What hurt makes that worthwhile? What can we do to relieve your suffering?
BTW, I have another take on Paul. Remember that he was a Roman citizen and a Pharisee whose job it was to persecute the Christians? I think his great vision on the road to Damascus that literally knocked him off his horse was that he had a laughing fit when he realized the way to control the Christians was to become their most popular scribe and twist the teachings of Christ to the advantage of Rome. Of course, he did that with such success that Christianity became the official religion of the Roman army some years later. I think modern Christians are fools to put any stock in the teachings of Paul at all. But that's just my opinion, you know, and we all know about them. :):
-Jeff
Braggi
04-08-2008, 08:51 AM
OK, I watched the movie "Hotel Rwanda" last night. A sobering tale to say the least. Here is an argument against "hate speech" that makes some sense:
https://towardfreedom.com/home/content/view/1268/1/
I still have trouble with the notion, and I don't think these ideas apply in the modern United States, but this article is certainly worth a read.
Here is the only call I found for "hate speech" legislation in the US coming from no less a source than The Christian Science Monitor:
So, is this a slippery slope? We have to be very careful about any legislation on these issues. Again, thankfully, we have The First Amendment protecting all kinds of speech, online and off.
So far I still don't know of any law prohibiting any kind of speech except those laws and Presidential decrees passed recently in the name of the failed "War on Terror."
-Jeff
OrchardDweller
04-08-2008, 09:09 AM
Don, please give some examples of people who have been arrested recently for what they said. Please limit those examples to speech in the United States. I don't recall any examples. I want to learn.
80 Year Old Man Arrested For Wearing Anti-war T-shirt In Mall
https://www.newsday.com/services/newspaper/printedition/monday/longisland/ny-lizirk315633042mar31,0,7417919.story
OrchardDweller
04-08-2008, 09:09 AM
Man Arrested After Refusing to Remove "Peace on Earth, Give Peace a Chance" T-Shirt in Mall
https://www.cnn.com/2003/US/Northeast/03/04/iraq.usa.shirt.reut/index.html
OrchardDweller
04-08-2008, 09:10 AM
Man Goes to Jail for Putting a Sign in his Yard
https://www.waff.com/Global/story.asp?S=1724535
OrchardDweller
04-08-2008, 09:11 AM
Couple Terrorized, Assaulted and Arrested For Flying an Upside Down U.S. Flag
https://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/july2007/310707coupleterrorized.htm
alanora
04-08-2008, 09:11 AM
Now let us not be too quick to forget that intention is the name of the game, and a clarity which promotes understanding is desired. One aspect is left out of this discussion entirely, the fact that , in the past, when someone outed themselves by saying "f you", or interestingly, called you a "mother", or any number of your alphabetic insults, at least you knew where you stood and could steer clear! PC is harder to understand at times, leaving one unsure of how/whether to proceed. Governmental interference in communication sucks, as does media's slant. I have taken personally, and been astounded that in this progressive community, how often I've been confronted with and taken back severely by someone speaking to me or in a group, using the term "jew down" when referring to haggling, which in some places it is an insult if you do not...arab mkt for example. I have pointed it out and the person has so embraced the phrase over their lifetime that they do not even see the fact that it is a very racist remark. I let them know. What else can you do with something so unconscious and ignorant and insidious? It lets me know how they feel and am not inclined in their direction again. One person was very real in their apology, and it was obvious that it had bothered him that he had been unconscious in his speech and I am again inclined to interact.
Don
I have to agree with Jeff.
Why can't you be a man and say what is on your mind!
Stop dancing around like a sissy and act all hurt because you can only say that you can't say what you want to say.
DON MsTerry IS GIVING YOU PERMISSION TO SAY WHAT YOU WANT TO SAY!!
Go for it, let it all out!
People want to know!
Police State 2007 - Bulls on Parade (video 6 min)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4mvHDx8YQk4
OrchardDweller
04-08-2008, 09:14 AM
Former CIA Analyst nearly thrown out for confronting Rumsfeld about lies regarding WMDs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5NWYZHhZZHc
CNN's coverage above refers to 27 year CIA analyst veteran Ray McGovern as just a "protester", and the the audio appears to have been overdubbed to make it appear that McGovern was interrupting Rumsfeld. Watch the longer version of the clip and you'll see that McGovern was called upon and introduces himself.
Lest your brain be so fried from all the pot you smoke(d) that you forget, let me remind you that I'm waiting for your clarification of your statement above: "Do you or don't you have an" inability to say what I want."?
Don Big Smile
Since Braggi so generously addressed all your concerns the way I would have, I'll explain the above to you.
When people use these little things " or ' , it usually means they are quoting directly, without alterations of content or text.
If you go back to your post, you will see that it was you who said it not I.
But I find interesting that is what you want to skewer me on, your words, not mine
WHITE IS RIGHT
I figured it out Don
WHITE IS RIGHT
you can't say it anymore without feeling funny
WHITE IS RIGHT, WITH GOD ON OUR SIDE
that is the one, right?
That is where you want to go back to.
In the good old days, anybody could use the N-word and kill one just for fun, and freedom of course
The land of the free, never existed for blacks, mexicans, Native Americans, Chinese, wops, spicks and even women.
But white men could do what they wanted too.
Do you miss those days, Don?
You know what my beef really is, MsTerry? That "The Land of the Free" isn't that anymore, thank you very little. They don't even CALL IT THAT anymore in the media, nor do other nations refer to us as such. We USED to be that. Giving up our right to Freedom of Speech has toppled the giant that America used to be, bastion of freedom in a world enslaved by tyrants, dictators and lunatics. Thanks to the lunatics here, we're now subject to the same subjective crap citizens of any other nation are subject to, so the bottom line is: watch what you say and where you say it.
Don
Braggi
04-08-2008, 09:33 AM
Thanks OrchardDweller. You've amply demonstrated what freedoms of speech are now curtailed.
This ain't about political correctness nor about gay rights.
This is about an organized attack on the Constitution from the White House and, by extension, from the Christian Right and the Neo Cons. (Don't you love that term? New Cons? Sadly, they haven't been convicted enough.)
Thanks OrchardDweller. You've amply demonstrated what freedoms of speech are now curtailed.
This ain't about political correctness nor about gay rights.
This is about an organized attack on the Constitution from the White House and, by extension, from the Christian Right and the Neo Cons. (Don't you love that term? New Cons? Sadly, they haven't been convicted enough.)
-Jeff
There is no left and right Braggi. It's an illusion to make us think we have a choice in matters. Both sides are owned by the same powers. Until people wake up to this, we're going to continue to move towards fascism and a one world unelected government.
H.R. 1955: Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007
Introduced: Apr 19, 2007
Sponsor: Rep. Jane Harman [D-CA]
404 Ayes, 6 Nays, 22 Present/Not Voting.
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h110-1955
When you make speech illegal, it is up to others to determine what "hate" speech is or what "terrorist" speech is. Now, they've determined that anti-war speech is "homegrown terrorism" and you can have your assets frozen. They're working on making criticism of the government a crime. The founding fathers considered freedom of speech and press essential in a free society.
Executive Order: Blocking Property of Certain Persons Who Threaten Stabilization Efforts in Iraq
https://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/07/20070717-3.html
There is no left and right Braggi. It's an illusion to make us think we have a choice in matters. Both sides are owned by the same powers. Until people wake up to this, we're going to continue to move towards fascism and a one world unelected government.
Like all Great Lies, this one is built upon a core of truth, but the percent of lie vs. the percent of truth makes the lie so clear that few believe it.
Yup, the University of California gave donations to the McCain campaign and both Democrats. Does that mean there will be no difference in national policies coming from the White House if McCain is elected instead of Obama? Does that mean we'd still have the current situation world wide if Gore had been inaugurated after his election instead of Bush?
Don't be a fool OrchardDweller. You're stating a Libertarian lie that no one believes and rightfully so.
I agree with you (personally) that a corporatocracy is to be avoided or we're all going down the path to fascism and we're already most of the way there. But there is a vast difference between the Republican leadership and the Democrat. Both are corrupt, but then the system is also corrupt and the Libertarians would only make it worse.
-Jeff
thewholetruth
04-08-2008, 11:46 AM
Wow. What a bunch of racist garbage you've posted, MsTerry. I don't know how to respond to such sickness.
That you're accusing me of being a racist says volumes about you and your inability to have an intelligent conversation with me.
I'll tell you what I tell any mentally ill person who is off the hook and wants to engage: I understand, MsTerry. I understand.
What I understand is that you appear to have some deep-rooted issues which seem to have rendered you incapable of honest, intelligent dialogue with me today.
Have a nice day, MsTerry.
Don
WHITE IS RIGHT
I figured it out Don
WHITE IS RIGHT
you can't say it anymore without feeling funny
WHITE IS RIGHT, WITH GOD ON OUR SIDE
that is the one, right?
That is where you want to go back to.
In the good old days, anybody could use the N-word and kill one just for fun, and freedom of course
The land of the free, never existed for blacks, mexicans, Native Americans, Chinese, wops, spicks and even women.
But white men could do what they wanted too.
Do you miss those days, Don?
handy
04-08-2008, 12:03 PM
<snip>
Don't be a fool Handy. You're stating a Libertarian lie that no one believes and rightfully so.
<snip>
-Jeff
Are you confusing me with orchard dweller? You seemed to be responding to his post...
Braggi
04-08-2008, 12:18 PM
Are you confusing me with orchard dweller? You seemed to be responding to his post...
Oops! So sorry Handy. I edited the post.
I'm reading too much on Wacco. Brain is becoming Liberal mush. It's all becoming a blur ...
-Jeff
Braggi
04-08-2008, 12:26 PM
Wow. What a bunch of racist garbage you've posted, MsTerry. I don't know how to respond to such sickness. ...
I have to agree MsTerry. That was over the top. Actually my post a few back is along the same lines so my bad too.
Don is stubbornly resisting saying what he can't say. He just can't say it.
I think we have to leave it at that. It's really not right to put words into another's mouth even though the imagination races ahead.
If he was in therapy his therapist would call him a "help rejecting complainer." No matter what you offer as a solution to the complaint, it's always rejected, but the complaint remains.
Meds won't help.
-Jeff
MsTerry
04-08-2008, 01:15 PM
Not so fast, Jeff
If you read the whole post you responded to so eloquently, it all comes from a myopic white male's POV. No nuances or acknowledgments of other colors.
"When you were 10 they were still killing people for being black and getting away with it scotfree."
But they weren't getting arrested for what they SAID in public.
To state that a black or any colored person had Freedom of Speech in the 50's or 60's is racist in itself.
They didn't talk unless they enjoyed bodily harm
I have to agree MsTerry. That was over the top. Actually my post a few back is along the same lines so my bad too.
Don is stubbornly resisting saying what he can't say. He just can't say it.
I think we have to leave it at that. It's really not right to put words into another's mouth even though the imagination races ahead.
If he was in therapy his therapist would call him a "help rejecting complainer." No matter what you offer as a solution to the complaint, it's always rejected, but the complaint remains.
Meds won't help.
-Jeff
MsTerry
04-08-2008, 01:27 PM
Don,
I didn't mean to offend you, I am just letting you know how you come across.
I am trying to have an intelligent conversation with you, but you are like a politician.
You won't say what is bothering you and you won't answer yes/no questions, so I am trying to fill in the blanks with my FOS.
Of course you used your FOS to call me some names, huuummmm, wonder where all that came from......................
Wow. What a bunch of racist garbage you've posted, MsTerry. I don't know how to respond to such sickness.
That you're accusing me of being a racist says volumes about you and your inability to have an intelligent conversation with me.
I'll tell you what I tell any mentally ill person who is off the hook and wants to engage: I understand, MsTerry. I understand.
What I understand is that you appear to have some deep-rooted issues which seem to have rendered you incapable of honest, intelligent dialogue with me today.
Have a nice day, MsTerry.
Don
Braggi
04-08-2008, 01:32 PM
Not so fast, Jeff
If you read the whole post you responded to so eloquently, it all comes from a myopic white male's POV. No nuances or acknowledgments of other colors. ...
Of course, but; my point is that we all need to be careful when we create "fill in the blank" comments for people who won't do it for themselves. Even if we're right we can be doing wrong, if you get my drift. Better to allow him let the kitty out of the sack himself.
-Jeff
Lenny
04-08-2008, 07:18 PM
Enough! I will probably give up on this missive, but what the hey!
You write things that have a "ring of truth" but may be taken out of context.
Below you write about "people being locked up" during the McCarthy hearings. I maybe wrong, but I don't think folks were actually locked up. Maybe they were, but as it is your positive statement, you can prove me wrong.
But the REAL deal is: well, let me give you an example: if I was an Arab, today, and came to you and befriended you, then wanted to know where I can buy explosives, then asked you were the electrical grid was for a major city, the water wells, the best way to get onto an airplane carrying large luggage....I trust you get the picture. Would you help me out?
Well, the US thought that was going on in the 1940s. Hoover Damn, power electrical grids (still "new" in some places), large water works for city drinking, medical hospital supply locations, a whole slew of "infrastructure" was being built, and "foreigners" were trying to get their physical plans and operations. Again, imagine a boatload of "Arabs" getting that information from YOU. Can you see it? So when the McCarthy issue flared up, there was some substance to the matter. Kind of like those 19 fellas DID leave a trail, so did "communists" back then in the 1930s and 40s. They were interested in destroying the infrastructure, creating panic (very trendy these days) and planning to "score" in the ensuing chaos.
And, thus, we thought we were at war with them (the communist). For one reason, they told US so.
Much like Osama declared war on US in 1996.
Oh, and for the record, when the achieves of the KGB were reviewed after the fall of the Soviet Empire, most all those McCarthy issues were "conservative" in the main. They really DID have folks here doing those things! Names, places, and all that.
Next: Malcolm. The dude was a pimp! So, yeah, he went to prison! And Dr King WAS a rabble rouser. So yes, he go arrested for what he DID, not for what he said. He broke the black letter law. Bad law, but it wasn't for what he said! Oh, and don't tell me he got killed for things he said. Please, spare me.
Oh: Kent State. Sad. That changed the "mood" of the country. Things were "this & that" but when that went down......the "silent majority" cried and the war was over about 3 years later. The shooters were inexperienced youngsters. Consider that a freak accident. But in context, there were about 300 protests a year all across the nation, in various parts, predominately in all the major cities, every weekend, and in most universities. Sooner or later the guns were going to go off..........shocked to the nation, even over in the bush, but only a little. If you were around, you'd remember it too, and so would put the context to what you stated in your retort. And if you weren't around, the try it on for size and be intellectually honest, as you've asked Don to be.
Oh, and as for kicking a dead horse. OK, there is no one locked up in the US for speaking. If that is the only point then, you win.
And consider your cousins to the North:
https://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2007/dec/07120306.html
What is amazing is that "they" are just like "US", except "ahead of US" in so many ways. The guy has been silenced by the government when speaking about homosexuality. Wow. Now we all would not want that hear as well. What irony!
I am amazed: some Muslim women asked some university for a few days a week in the gym without males. Granted. What is a kick is that if, say Amish women, had petitioned for the same...........:2cents:
I already had my beer for the night..........so tempted!
I want to learn.
Now you are either showing your ignorance or your intellectual dishonesty. People were being locked up and blackballed for what they said in PRIVATE as well as what they said in public. You can find archives of McCarthy hearings to prove that. I think you know that, actually. People were being harassed and arrested for the books and papers they had in their possession as well as what they said in movies, on radio, in speeches and in print.
Amazing perspective you have here. Ask Malcolm X and Martin Luther King Jr. both of whom had arrest records and got killed for things they said.
Did you actually read that article? Some students were shot while leaving the scene as the Guardsmen had commanded them. The crowd was neither rioting nor burning at the time of the shootings. They did return some of the tear gas canisters to the Guardsmen the Guardsmen had dropped among the students, but the Guardsmen were protected by gas masks. The burning (of a condemned building) happened the day before. Read up. You'll be smarter, or at least, appear smarter.
The students didn't attack the Guardsmen at the time of the shootings. The shootings were NOT in self defense. They shot into a crowd that was dispersing. Show some intellectual honesty, Don.
Still don't know what you're talking about. When Lenny talked about racist slurs you agreed that's what can't be said. Is that what you want to say? Please be specific. You're not gaining any respect or clout on this board by constantly avoiding to answer what it is you'd like to say in public. Your comments about preaching are laughable.
Can you please refer me to any laws in the US that have ever been passed against "hate speech?" You keep referring to legal action against speech but you've given no examples of laws or prosecutions.
Heh heh heh. A Ms. Terryism. And Ms. Terry gives Mykil a bad time. :):
Who? Who is preventing you from speaking these things? Who has been attacked for it? Who has had the power of government stop them from speaking it? Please be specific since you don't like those fuzzy gray areas.
OK, so? There is a great deal of "Scripture" supported hate speech. Goes on all the time. Lots of hate in "Scripture," much of it coming from "God." I still don't know of any preachers being pulled from their podiums because they quoted God's hate speech.
:): -Jeff
Braggi
04-08-2008, 08:12 PM
Enough! I will probably give up on this missive, but what the hey!
You write things that have a "ring of truth" but may be taken out of context.
Below you write about "people being locked up" during the McCarthy hearings. I maybe wrong, but I don't think folks were actually locked up. ...
No, you are right. Most of McCarthy's accusations proved to be false, of course, and as far as I know, nobody was locked up because of them. Error on my part.
...
But the REAL deal is: well, let me give you an example: if I was an Arab, today, and came to you and befriended you, then wanted to know where I can buy explosives, then asked you were the electrical grid was for a major city, the water wells, the best way to get onto an airplane carrying large luggage....I trust you get the picture. Would you help me out? ...
Well, this is an interesting point. I think if the, uh, enemies of the US were serious about causing catastrophe in the US, it would have happened. I think the fact that there have been no attacks since 9/11 means those attacks achieved the desired goals. There is now a world wide war on. I think that was the intent of both sides, assuming there were two sides on 9/11.
Let's put it this way: if I wanted to disrupt the US economy I could do it single handedly over the course of a few months. I won't say how, of course. It would take almost no money, almost no planning, and almost no personal exposure on my part. I wouldn't have to hurt or kill anyone, although a few murders would add to the "terror" aspect.
What I'm trying to say is that if we actually had a well funded enemy wanting to disrupt life in the US, it would be happening. I think bin Laden is a tool of the CIA, whether he knows that or not. I think the whole Failed War on Terror is a bunch of hogwash intended to steal money from the US taxpayers and I think it's been terribly effective in its goals; just not on reducing terror since that has skyrocketed. They are too many War on Terror goals to point out in this email, but the attacks on the Constitution are at the heart and are both cause an effect of so many other attacks on our freedoms and our pocketbooks. Bush and Co. has done well. Just look at oil company profits and Haliburton. Doing quite well, thank you very much.
...
Next: Malcolm. The dude was a pimp! So, yeah, he went to prison! And Dr King WAS a rabble rouser. So yes, he go arrested for what he DID, not for what he said. He broke the black letter law. Bad law, but it wasn't for what he said! Oh, and don't tell me he got killed for things he said. Please, spare me. ...
OK, perhaps you know why he was killed? Care to share that?
...
Oh: Kent State. Sad. That changed the "mood" of the country. Things were "this & that" but when that went down......the "silent majority" cried and the war was over about 3 years later. The shooters were inexperienced youngsters. Consider that a freak accident. ...
You know, the shooters are almost always inexperienced youngsters. That really sad since the event might ruin their lives as well as ending the lives of others.
Why are we talking about this? Oh, freedom of speech.
...
I already had my beer for the night..........so tempted!
Well, Lenny, I don't disagree with much you've said. In fact, I think you and I could enjoy some beers together sometime. Ya never know.
-Jeff
MsTerry
04-08-2008, 08:58 PM
No, you are right. Most of McCarthy's accusations proved to be false, of course, and as far as I know, nobody was locked up because of them. Error on my part.
-Jeff
Yes error on your part!
In 1947 the House of Un-American Activities Committee (https://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAhuac.htm) (HUAC), chaired by J. Parnell Thomas (https://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAparnell.htm), began an investigation into the Hollywood Motion Picture Industry. The HUAC interviewed 41 people who were working in Hollywood. These people attended voluntarily and became known as "friendly witnesses". During their interviews they named nineteen people who they accused of holding left-wing views.<table align="center" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="90%"><tbody><tr><td align="center" valign="top">
</td><td align="center" valign="top">
</td> </tr> </tbody></table> One of those named, Bertolt Brecht (https://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAbrecht.htm), a playwright, gave evidence and then left for East Germany (https://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/2WWeastGermany.htm). Ten others: Herbert Biberman (https://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAbiberman.htm), Lester Cole (https://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAcoleL.htm), Albert Maltz (https://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAmaltz.htm), Adrian Scott (https://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAscottA.htm), Samuel Ornitz (https://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAornitz.htm),, Dalton Trumbo (https://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAtrumbo.htm), Edward Dmytryk (https://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAdmytryk.htm), Ring Lardner Jr (https://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAlardner.htm)., John Howard Lawson (https://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAlawsonJH.htm) and Alvah Bessie (https://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAbessie.htm) refused to answer any questions.
Known as the Hollywood Ten (https://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAhollywood10.htm), they claimed that the 1st Amendment of the United States Constitution gave them the right to do this. The House of Un-American Activities Committee (https://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAhuac.htm) and the courts during appeals disagreed and they all were found guilty of contempt of congress and each was sentenced to between six and twelve months in prison.
I personally know people who had to suffer the fate of being branded a communist and the resulting unemployment and stigma.
Maybe you had your beer early too, Jeff?
Braggi
04-08-2008, 09:27 PM
Yes error on your part!
In 1947 the House of Un-American Activities Committee (https://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAhuac.htm) (HUAC), ...
[snip]
Maybe you had your beer early too, Jeff?
No, don't actually drink much beer these days. Puts me to sleep. I did have a glass of fine Healdsburg red wine though. Yes, I had forgotten about that. Thing is, I wasn't actually born until 1954, so I didn't read the papers much back then.
I know that actors, writers and directors in Hollywood suffered a great deal because of the McCarthy accusations. OTOH, contempt of court is not the same as being jailed because you were communist or even accused of being communist. Thing is, none of them should have ever been investigated anyway. McCarthy should never have been elected. Possible should never have been born? Eh, he was a teacher even though he didn't realize what he was teaching us. Too bad so many have forgotten, eh?
Thanks for the reminder.
-Jeff
PS. Think I'll have a cup of peppermint tea.
Valley Oak
04-08-2008, 09:36 PM
Yes, people were locked up during McCarthyism:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism
And:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_scare
And:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_blacklist
And:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_Committee_on_Un-American_Activities
And:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alger_Hiss
And:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julius_and_Ethel_Rosenberg
Other general references of U.S. repression against its citizens:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_American_internment
And:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorado_Labor_Wars
And:
The list goes on and on!
It is really sad to see that we Americans don't know our history very well. The U.S. government on many occasions has carried out very repressive acts of violence and political opression against its own people. And if we can even count some things that are going on today. How about the 15 year old American citizen who has been in Guantanamo Bay now for about five years or so and is still there? What about his Constitutional rights? If they can do it to him (a minor, by the way, when he was illegally detained) then they can do it to you and me.
Please read Howard Zinn's book: 'A People's History of the United States'
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_People%27s_History_of_the_United_States
This is just a primer!
Edward
No, you are right. Most of McCarthy's accusations proved to be false, of course, and as far as I know, nobody was locked up because of them. Error on my part.
Well, this is an interesting point. I think if the, uh, enemies of the US were serious about causing catastrophe in the US, it would have happened. I think the fact that there have been no attacks since 9/11 means those attacks achieved the desired goals. There is now a world wide war on. I think that was the intent of both sides, assuming there were two sides on 9/11.
Let's put it this way: if I wanted to disrupt the US economy I could do it single handedly over the course of a few months. I won't say how, of course. It would take almost no money, almost no planning, and almost no personal exposure on my part. I wouldn't have to hurt or kill anyone, although a few murders would add to the "terror" aspect.
What I'm trying to say is that if we actually had a well funded enemy wanting to disrupt life in the US, it would be happening. I think bin Laden is a tool of the CIA, whether he knows that or not. I think the whole Failed War on Terror is a bunch of hogwash intended to steal money from the US taxpayers and I think it's been terribly effective in its goals; just not on reducing terror since that has skyrocketed. They are too many War on Terror goals to point out in this email, but the attacks on the Constitution are at the heart and are both cause an effect of so many other attacks on our freedoms and our pocketbooks. Bush and Co. has done well. Just look at oil company profits and Haliburton. Doing quite well, thank you very much.
OK, perhaps you know why he was killed? Care to share that?
You know, the shooters are almost always inexperienced youngsters. That really sad since the event might ruin their lives as well as ending the lives of others.
Why are we talking about this? Oh, freedom of speech.
Well, Lenny, I don't disagree with much you've said. In fact, I think you and I could enjoy some beers together sometime. Ya never know.
-Jeff
Braggi
04-09-2008, 10:10 AM
Yes, people were locked up during McCarthyism:
... (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism)
Edward, you're going off the deep end here. How many were locked up because they were convicted of McCarthy's claims?
Please don't think I'm supporting anything McCarthy did. I think he was a total jerk.
-Jeff
Valley Oak
04-09-2008, 06:04 PM
Hundreds, Jeff, and thousands lost their jobs. Please read the following, my friend. The source is the Wikipedia page on 'McCarthyism.' The numbers in brackets are page references, I believe, not the ages of the victims, among which are Charlie Chaplin, Orson Welles, and Edward G. Robinson:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism
Edward
Victims of McCarthyism
"It is difficult to estimate the number of victims of McCarthyism. The number imprisoned is in the hundreds, and some ten or twelve thousand lost their jobs.[43] In many cases, simply being subpoenaed by HUAC or one of the other committees was sufficient cause to be fired.[44] Many of those who were imprisoned, lost their jobs or were questioned by committees did in fact have a past or present connection of some kind with the Communist Party. But for the vast majority, both the potential for them to do harm to the nation and the nature of their communist affiliation were tenuous.[45] Suspected homosexuality was also a common cause for being targeted by McCarthyism. According to some scholars, this resulted in more persecutions than did alleged connection with Communism.[46]
In the film industry, over 300 actors, authors and directors were denied work in the U.S. through the unofficial Hollywood blacklist. Blacklists were at work throughout the entertainment industry, in universities and schools at all levels, in the legal profession, and in many other fields. A port security program initiated by the Coast Guard shortly after the start of the Korean War required a review of every maritime worker who loaded or worked aboard any American ship, regardless of cargo or destination. As with other loyalty-security reviews of McCarthyism, the identities of any accusers and even the nature of any accusations were typically kept secret from the accused. Nearly 3,000 seamen and longshoremen lost their jobs due to this program alone.[47]
A few of the more famous people who were blacklisted or suffered some other persecution during McCarthyism are listed here:"
Leonard Bernstein, composer and conductor[48]
Charlie Chaplin, actor[48]
Aaron Copland, composer[48]
Bartley Crum, attorney[49]
Jules Dassin, director[48]
W.E.B. DuBois, civil rights activist and author[50]
Howard Fast, author[51]
Lee Grant, actress[48]
Dashiell Hammett, author[48]
Lillian Hellman, playwright[48]
John Hubley, animator[48]
Langston Hughes, author[52]
Sam Jaffe, actor[48]
Gypsy Rose Lee, actress[53]
Philip Loeb, actor[54]
Joseph Losey, director[48]
Burgess Meredith, actor[53]
Arthur Miller, playwright and essayist[53]
Zero Mostel, actor[48]
Clifford Odets, author[48]
J. Robert Oppenheimer, physicist, "father of the atomic bomb"[55]
Linus Pauling, chemist[56]
Paul Robeson, actor, athlete, singer, author, political and civil rights activist[57]
Edward G. Robinson, actor[53]
Waldo Salt, author[48]
Pete Seeger, folk singer[52]
Artie Shaw, jazz musician[52]
Howard Da Silva, actor[48]
Paul Sweezy, economist and founder-editor of Monthly Review[58]
Tsien Hsue-shen, physicist[59]
Orson Welles, actor, author and director[53]
Edward, you're going off the deep end here. How many were locked up because they were convicted of McCarthy's claims?
Please don't think I'm supporting anything McCarthy did. I think he was a total jerk.
-Jeff
Braggi
04-10-2008, 08:57 AM
Hundreds, Jeff, and thousands lost their jobs. Please read the following, my friend. ...
I tried to throw you a rope. You're still off the deep end.
Go back and read what I posted.
I know McCarthy made life Hel for a lot of people. Kind of like Bush and his underlings are doing now; empowering and enriching themselves by selling fear and loathing.
-Jeff
Melodymama
04-10-2008, 12:27 PM
[If anyone reading here understands what Don is talking about, please educate me. I have no idea what Don wants to say that he feels he can't. He mentions the lawyers of homosexuals, as if they were somehow preventing him from speaking. I don't get it.quote=Braggi;54342]
Having lived in Rincon Valley myself for 25+ years, I can say it is politically conservative and the schools became more and more "PC" when angry young children started repeating what they must have heard at home, things like, "you are just a stupid faggot." The schools took over the role of respect police as many (not all) of the conservative praying people taught their children disrespect of those not like them. It became more and more ridiculous and children were expelled, and some were labeled "witches" because they dressed in black after a friend suicided. That is when I brought my children out to Nonesuch School in order to find an intelligent community in which they could have good teachers, mutual respect for all, diversity that is applauded, and then I finally moved to West County. In my opinion diversity and mutual respect in the grand sense of all being equal, is not a the norm in households RV. I had no difficulty except that I knew I could have more open philosophical discussions (without confrontation) with friends I met other places. When expression is constricted in any form, it is constricted totally. My Christian upbringing left me with the message of love and respect for all, and the understanding that I do not know what impact my behavior has on others. Therefore, I honor the right to tell one's truth and not to disrespect the choices of others. Diversity is what makes strong community. Don, does this at all speak to your situation? I, too, saw many kids over many years in east Santa Rosa.
Valley Oak
04-10-2008, 01:23 PM
We also live in Rincon Valley, since 2008, and ALL of our neighbors are reactionaries. I feel like we're on a small island surrounded by the enemy.
Edward
[If anyone reading here understands what Don is talking about, please educate me. I have no idea what Don wants to say that he feels he can't. He mentions the lawyers of homosexuals, as if they were somehow preventing him from speaking. I don't get it.quote=Braggi;54342]
Having lived in Rincon Valley myself for 25+ years, I can say it is politically conservative and the schools became more and more "PC" when angry young children started repeating what they must have heard at home, things like, "you are just a stupid faggot." The schools took over the role of respect police as many (not all) of the conservative praying people taught their children disrespect of those not like them. It became more and more ridiculous and children were expelled, and some were labeled "witches" because they dressed in black after a friend suicided. That is when I brought my children out to Nonesuch School in order to find an intelligent community in which they could have good teachers, mutual respect for all, diversity that is applauded, and then I finally moved to West County. In my opinion diversity and mutual respect in the grand sense of all being equal, is not a the norm in households RV. I had no difficulty except that I knew I could have more open philosophical discussions (without confrontation) with friends I met other places. When expression is constricted in any form, it is constricted totally. My Christian upbringing left me with the message of love and respect for all, and the understanding that I do not know what impact my behavior has on others. Therefore, I honor the right to tell one's truth and not to disrespect the choices of others. Diversity is what makes strong community. Don, does this at all speak to your situation? I, too, saw many kids over many years in east Santa Rosa.
thewholetruth
04-10-2008, 02:13 PM
"Having lived in Rincon Valley myself for 25+ years, I can say it is politically conservative and the schools became more and more "PC" when angry young children started repeating what they must have heard at home, things like, "you are just a stupid faggot." The schools took over the role of respect police as many (not all) of the conservative praying people taught their children disrespect of those not like them."
You've described a scenario that I've never seen in RV. We're a subcommunity of Whites, Blacks, Latinos and Asians, straights and gays, men and women and children. I can't imagine what church you attend or what church you're describing. I don't have a single Christian friend that talks that way about homosexuals, Melody.
"In my opinion..."
Everybody's got one and personally I don't see any real value in any of them, unless they are supported by facts. After all, why would something pulled out of someone's backside be of value to the next person?
"...diversity and mutual respect in the grand sense of all being equal, is not a the norm in households RV."
Perhaps you could explain why you have this opinion. Have you been in many households in RV, Melody, in order to draw such a blanket assessment? How many? I've never heard anyone make such an all-encompassing, sweeping generalization of an entire region of SR before. Amazing.
"I had no difficulty except that I knew I could have more open philosophical discussions (without confrontation) with friends I met other places."
I appreciate confrontation, challenges to my views. It sounds like you were really seeking solace in the company of like-minded people. Yes?
"When expression is constricted in any form, it is constricted totally."
Excuse me? Could you please give me an example so that I might understand what you're saying in that statement? My instincts suggest that you're referring to free speech, and if that's your point, I agree. If not, please clarify.
"My Christian upbringing left me with the message of love and respect for all, and the understanding that I do not know what impact my behavior has on others. Therefore, I honor the right to tell one's truth and not to disrespect the choices of others."
I'm not sure I comprehend the term "one's truth". Something either is the truth or it is not. Would you give me some examples, Melody? I truly don't understand what you're referring to.
"Diversity is what makes strong community. Don, does this at all speak to your situation? I, too, saw many kids over many years in east Santa Rosa."
I agree that diversity helps make strong communities, but I don't agree with your statement that is WHAT makes strong community. Love, support, communication, personal humility, personal sacrifice, understanding, unity, compromise - those, too, contribute to strong communities.
I'm not sure how that statement "speaks to [my] situation", however. Again, perhaps some clarity would help me track with you.
Thanks.
Don
[If anyone reading here understands what Don is talking about, please educate me. I have no idea what Don wants to say that he feels he can't. He mentions the lawyers of homosexuals, as if they were somehow preventing him from speaking. I don't get it.quote=Braggi;54342]
Having lived in Rincon Valley myself for 25+ years, I can say it is politically conservative and the schools became more and more "PC" when angry young children started repeating what they must have heard at home, things like, "you are just a stupid faggot." The schools took over the role of respect police as many (not all) of the conservative praying people taught their children disrespect of those not like them. It became more and more ridiculous and children were expelled, and some were labeled "witches" because they dressed in black after a friend suicided. That is when I brought my children out to Nonesuch School in order to find an intelligent community in which they could have good teachers, mutual respect for all, diversity that is applauded, and then I finally moved to West County. In my opinion diversity and mutual respect in the grand sense of all being equal, is not a the norm in households RV. I had no difficulty except that I knew I could have more open philosophical discussions (without confrontation) with friends I met other places. When expression is constricted in any form, it is constricted totally. My Christian upbringing left me with the message of love and respect for all, and the understanding that I do not know what impact my behavior has on others. Therefore, I honor the right to tell one's truth and not to disrespect the choices of others. Diversity is what makes strong community. Don, does this at all speak to your situation? I, too, saw many kids over many years in east Santa Rosa.
Melodymama
04-10-2008, 02:51 PM
Don,
First, my name is not Melody.
I do not have the time or interest to parse the parses and patch a response to it all. Confrontation is putting down the other side to lift your own, or what is called dismissal, and is not conducive to discussion. Intelligent discussion is between those who do not easily become defensive. I raised children there (in RV) and was very active in the schools. My kids are grown, so this was back in the olden days. I am very social and knew many people there. The area became more populated with middle class white people who taught their children to be very judgmental of others, those of other races, income levels and lifestyles. Yes, we all have opinions. I share mine freely, and sometimes it is helpful. You still have not answered any of the many reiterations of:
Don, what is it you cannot say that you want to say? What can you not say on a street corner? Why did you start this line of discussion?
Until you answer this simple question I see no reason to engage with you.
All you seem to do is question anyone who responds to you about what they say. I do get that you want to argue. It seems this has nothing to do with the topic of free speech, or thought or anything. And, like my kids would have said when I became redundant and boring, I am saying in an uncharacteristic and rude way ..."I have a life to go to." Laura or MM or GoddessofLife or Patiencehasrunthin
thewholetruth
04-10-2008, 03:50 PM
I understand completely, Laura.
It seems that what you call "confrontation", I call "intelligent discussion". I understand that not everyone is up for intelligent discussion, or even interested in their comments being questioned, or as you see it: "confronted". It's so much easier to just say what one has to say, and then back out without having to discuss or converse about it. I get it. Only then, it's not a 'discussion' at all. It's just commenting. No risk, no lesson, no opportunity to grow when everyone is simply commenting without discussion or conversation.
Don :meditate:
Don,
First, my name is not Melody.
I do not have the time or interest to parse the parses and patch a response to it all. Confrontation is putting down the other side to lift your own, or what is called dismissal, and is not conducive to discussion. Intelligent discussion is between those who do not easily become defensive. I raised children there (in RV) and was very active in the schools. My kids are grown, so this was back in the olden days. I am very social and knew many people there. The area became more populated with middle class white people who taught their children to be very judgmental of others, those of other races, income levels and lifestyles. Yes, we all have opinions. I share mine freely, and sometimes it is helpful. You still have not answered any of the many reiterations of:
Don, what is it you cannot say that you want to say? What can you not say on a street corner? Why did you start this line of discussion?
Until you answer this simple question I see no reason to engage with you.
All you seem to do is question anyone who responds to you about what they say. I do get that you want to argue. It seems this has nothing to do with the topic of free speech, or thought or anything. And, like my kids would have said when I became redundant and boring, I am saying in an uncharacteristic and rude way ..."I have a life to go to." Laura or MM or GoddessofLife or Patiencehasrunthin
thewholetruth
04-10-2008, 04:58 PM
Laura, I certainly didn't come here to do battle with you. I simply asked you some questions about some comments you volunteered here. If you're not comfortable talking about why you say what you say, or why you believe what you believe, I'm okay with that.
"Don, what is it you cannot say that you want to say? What can you not say on a street corner? Why did you start this line of discussion?
Until you answer this simple question I see no reason to engage with you."
Frankly, Laura, I'm not convinced that this is why you don't want to engage with me at all. :tennis: My initial comments weren't a part of your original reply, nor did I bring them up in my response to your post. In fact, I find it a little silly that you've reached back and dragged them out and point at them as your excuse for not wanting "to engage with" me. But I have no problem with you not wanting to discuss the reasons behind your comments to me. That's your perrogative.
And I apologize, Laura, for mistaking your name to be "Melody". It was the first time I saw you post, and MelodyMama, well, I just ASSumed your name was Melody.
Don :lightening:
Don,
First, my name is not Melody.
I do not have the time or interest to parse the parses and patch a response to it all. Confrontation is putting down the other side to lift your own, or what is called dismissal, and is not conducive to discussion. Intelligent discussion is between those who do not easily become defensive. I raised children there (in RV) and was very active in the schools. My kids are grown, so this was back in the olden days. I am very social and knew many people there. The area became more populated with middle class white people who taught their children to be very judgmental of others, those of other races, income levels and lifestyles. Yes, we all have opinions. I share mine freely, and sometimes it is helpful. You still have not answered any of the many reiterations of:
Don, what is it you cannot say that you want to say? What can you not say on a street corner? Why did you start this line of discussion?
Until you answer this simple question I see no reason to engage with you.
All you seem to do is question anyone who responds to you about what they say. I do get that you want to argue. It seems this has nothing to do with the topic of free speech, or thought or anything. And, like my kids would have said when I became redundant and boring, I am saying in an uncharacteristic and rude way ..."I have a life to go to." Laura or MM or GoddessofLife or Patiencehasrunthin
Lenny
04-10-2008, 05:51 PM
[If anyone reading here understands what Don is talking about, please educate me. I have no idea what Don wants to say that he feels he can't. He mentions the lawyers of homosexuals, as if they were somehow preventing him from speaking. I don't get it.quote=Braggi;54342]
Having lived in Rincon Valley myself for 25+ years, I can say it is politically conservative and the schools became more and more "PC" when angry young children started repeating what they must have heard at home, things like, "you are just a stupid faggot." The schools took over the role of respect police as many (not all) of the conservative praying people taught their children disrespect of those not like them. It became more and more ridiculous and children were expelled, and some were labeled "witches" because they dressed in black after a friend suicided. That is when I brought my children out to Nonesuch School in order to find an intelligent community in which they could have good teachers, mutual respect for all, diversity that is applauded, and then I finally moved to West County. In my opinion diversity and mutual respect in the grand sense of all being equal, is not a the norm in households RV. I had no difficulty except that I knew I could have more open philosophical discussions (without confrontation) with friends I met other places. When expression is constricted in any form, it is constricted totally. My Christian upbringing left me with the message of love and respect for all, and the understanding that I do not know what impact my behavior has on others. Therefore, I honor the right to tell one's truth and not to disrespect the choices of others. Diversity is what makes strong community. Don, does this at all speak to your situation? I, too, saw many kids over many years in east Santa Rosa.
I get confused when folks say "political conservative" and expect us all to know what it means. They call Bush & Co "conservatives" and/or "neo-cons", yet it was last Sunday's Comics (Doonsbury or Opus?) that nailed them on the head. Pshaw!
Anyway, my kids Analy Grads never heard "nigger" until they went to school. Though dad grew up in the city where the term was used with frequency, we never used it, until they came home.....I got up off the floor and went to speak to the principle. While there a student walked by with "Fuck God" on his T-shirt! You are absolutely right Diversity is what makes us strong, but the intolerance in this area is unreal. I see it here on this site, but it's a minor issue as we are all adults, or try to be and those that don't want to be have ignore buttons. :2cents:
Melodymama
04-10-2008, 07:22 PM
[quote=donc1955;54853]Laura, I certainly didn't come here to do battle with you. I simply asked you some questions about some comments you volunteered here. If you're not comfortable talking about why you say what you say, or why you believe what you believe, I'm okay with that.
Don, what is it you cannot say that you want to say? What can you not say on a street corner? Why did you start this line of discussion?
Until you answer this simple question I see no reason to engage with you."
Frankly, Laura, I'm not convinced that this is why you don't want to engage
with me at all. :tennis:
I am getting over a virus at home and I have a bit more time than usual, so I have commented. It does not work for me to have you pick every sentence and question it. If you can just allow me to summerize and not impugn me for it, I will try to be more clear. I lived there for a long time. The middle and high school situation changed drastically during that time. When my children played sports in elementary school I encountered militaristic parents who thought shame and berrating children was the way to make them work harder. When we got to what is now middle school I found the larger area population to be of the push/push/push mentality. Walk the line, cut the cookies, etc. I had few friends then who meditated or did yoga. Relaxing and enjoying the family was not as important as being at every committee meeting. It seemed like the need to conform was the norm.
I come from rural Texas. I was a hippy girl in a country rock band in the 70's. I am not altogether graceful. I am honest and have personal integrity. I had to watch what I said to people in RV because I wanted my children to have as good an experience as possible. I am just really more of a bohemian, appreciate others, live and let live,enjoy life despite the crap we encounter. Out of respect for my family I cannot go into detail. We encountered some hugh obstacles that ended any fantasy that we had much real control over life. I could not return to 'normal' life and spent years dealing with difficulties that made me wish for more open minded neighbors with whom I could easily discuss the issues. My experience was that most of those people did not want to hear or talk about anything outside 'normal' and what shape the cookies would be for the next meeting. The area has changed. Never the less, I have always seen west county as my ultimate home and I am here now. Life is just a bit less prissy out here. I like the country feeling. I go to the store with mud on my shirt without thinking about it. And, the kids are raised, healthy, amazing and out of here, so I am free to discover more. I think being older has a lot to do with having a more relaxed perspective, so I could reunite with old RV parents and we would laugh and have a good time. Truth is, we might not even remember the ways we did not agree then. Thanks for responding in a way that worked for me, and take everything I say with a big dose of salt. Laura:peaceman:
And I apologize, Laura, for mistaking your name to be "Melody". It was the first time I saw you post, and MelodyMama, well, I just ASSumed your name was Melody.
Don
Lenny
04-10-2008, 08:23 PM
You Thoughtfully Penned:
"I think if the, uh, enemies of the US were serious about causing catastrophe in the US, it would have happened. I think the fact that there have been no attacks since 9/11 means those attacks achieved the desired goals. There is now a world wide war on. I think that was the intent of both sides, assuming there were two sides on 9/11."
You may have a point, but I get lost in it. I believe there are folks that flat out want us dead or converted, in that order. Very simple and clear. Due to the perceived asymmetry of our sides, I can only conclude that they've not succeeded to due various elements, including luck. The war you mentioned was declared by Osama two or three years after the first attack on the World Trade Center! Yes, "we" do have enemies. Makes one feel....special, eh?
You Thoughtfully Penned: 'What I'm trying to say is that if we actually had a well funded enemy wanting to disrupt life in the US, it would be happening. I think bin Laden is a tool of the CIA, whether he knows that or not. I think the whole Failed War on Terror is a bunch of hogwash intended to steal money from the US taxpayers and I think it's been terribly effective in its goals; just not on reducing terror since that has skyrocketed. They are too many War on Terror goals to point out in this email, but the attacks on the Constitution are at the heart and are both cause an effect of so many other attacks on our freedoms and our pocketbooks. Bush and Co. has done well. Just look at oil company profits and Haliburton. Doing quite well, thank you very much. "
I know my gas bill hasn't gone down. It's a tough nut to crack, the conspiracy notion, as there are too many assumptions for reason to accept. I understand we only know what we are told, but the numbers of people make it untenable. It's kind of like watching a finch take a dust bath: ALL that dust kicked up, like a miniature tornado and in the end it is one little bird making all that fuss! Certainly Bin Laden WAS working for the CIA, and was successful, but now.....who can say? As for our Constitution....another toughy, as during times of "war" (I know, the Congress didn't follow the Article 1, Section 8, paragraph 11 of the Constitution) and now we must suffer the pukes. I am surprised in the restraint this administration has shown. I hear and read the rhetoric, but given the powers he has taken, and it may well be a war on our Constitution, there is very little going on, IMO.
Oh, and as for our money being stolen, ALL taxes are theft by the government.
You Thoughtfully Penned: "OK, perhaps you know why he was killed? Care to share that?"
No, I don't know why Malcolm was killed. I recall the rumors at the time, but I learned to mount those up to those that wish to be like that little finch; just a lot of dust to cover themselves and make the issue clouded.
Probably FOI Muslims did it; usually money, power, and jealousy are at the root. The guy really was a power house!
<merciful deletion="">
</merciful>You Thoughtfully Penned: "Why are we talking about this? Oh, freedom of speech. Well, Lenny, I don't disagree with much you've said. In fact, I think you and I could enjoy some beers together sometime. Ya never know."
Hard to say, but since I am only limited to one beer, and that with the evening meal.....but it would be a good thing. I see some one is trying to put a slow pitch softball game together. That could lead to fun! Thanks
Lenny
04-10-2008, 08:39 PM
Yes error on your part!
In 1947 the House of Un-American Activities Committee (https://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAhuac.htm) (HUAC), chaired by J. Parnell Thomas (https://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAparnell.htm), began an investigation into the Hollywood Motion Picture Industry. The HUAC interviewed 41 people who were working in Hollywood. These people attended voluntarily and became known as "friendly witnesses". During their interviews they named nineteen people who they accused of holding left-wing views.<table style="width: 467px; height: 18px;" align="center" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tbody><tr><td align="center" valign="top">
</td><td align="center" valign="top">
</td> </tr> </tbody></table> One of those named, Bertolt Brecht (https://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAbrecht.htm), a playwright, gave evidence and then left for East Germany (https://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/2WWeastGermany.htm). Ten others: Herbert Biberman (https://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAbiberman.htm), Lester Cole (https://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAcoleL.htm), Albert Maltz (https://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAmaltz.htm), Adrian Scott (https://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAscottA.htm), Samuel Ornitz (https://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAornitz.htm),, Dalton Trumbo (https://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAtrumbo.htm), Edward Dmytryk (https://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAdmytryk.htm), Ring Lardner Jr (https://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAlardner.htm)., John Howard Lawson (https://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAlawsonJH.htm) and Alvah Bessie (https://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAbessie.htm) refused to answer any questions.
Known as the Hollywood Ten (https://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAhollywood10.htm), they claimed that the 1st Amendment of the United States Constitution gave them the right to do this. The House of Un-American Activities Committee (https://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAhuac.htm) and the courts during appeals disagreed and they all were found guilty of contempt of congress and each was sentenced to between six and twelve months in prison.
I personally know people who had to suffer the fate of being branded a communist and the resulting unemployment and stigma.
Maybe you had your beer early too, Jeff?
Ms Terry, the Spartacus group is as about a reliable source as the John Birch Society. Both have their "educational" point of view, and both have an agenda that cannot be washed over.
And for those that served their time for refusing to answer a judge or body of representatives, like a judge, IS contempt of court. So they went to jail, much as any one would for refusing to answer a legal body: contempt. Or maybe it they lied and were caught in it. It would be as if to say Barry Bonds went to jail for using steroids. He won't, at least not for using steroids, but that is what most people will say a few years from now. Nice try, but it is only worth my :2cents: