POLITICS President Trump: 100+ Mornings After (Term 1 Complete)

Discussion in 'Politicants' started by IP, Apr 30, 2017.

  1. Unimane

    Unimane Kill "The Caucasian"

    First off, it's awfully rich for a Trump supporter to take this tact considering the vast number of times your boy has attacked the media.

    However, is Omar threatening legal action? Is she using force of government to stop advertisers? Is she doing anything active, legislatively or with law enforcement, to "suppress his personal freedoms" other than criticizing him and those who support him financially? If so, then you have a case of censorship and the suppression of his rights. Otherwise, me stating he's a piece of shit isn't in any way a violation of his personal freedoms because I am allowed to do so and he isn't free from criticism.
     
  2. Tenacious D

    Tenacious D The law is of supreme importance, or no importance

    Trump is correct in his assessment of the mainstream media. A vast majority of Americans perfectly agree with him.

    And not you.

    If she’s not “taking action” to suppress his speech, please explain her tweet in any other context. I’ll gladly wait for your answer.
     
  3. Unimane

    Unimane Kill "The Caucasian"

    "Advertisers should not be underwriting hate speech" was her comment. That's suppressing his personal rights? She's expressing an opinion which "a vast majority of Americans perfectly agree with" (If we're going to make unsubstantiated claims to suit our needs and arguments).

    That's not an action, in any sense, legally, legislatively, etc. which is referenced in the first amendment. But, you know this and your take on her is really based upon you not liking her as opposed to the more indefensibly stupid idea she's violating his personal freedoms you've chosen.
     
    IP likes this.
  4. Tenacious D

    Tenacious D The law is of supreme importance, or no importance

    You’re way over your skis, here.

    First, you’ve mistaken my commenting that “an opinion which the vast majority of Americans agree with” to somehow be personal conjecture, or baseless speculation. It isn’t, and poll after your precious polling supports my claim.

    Conversely, your stating that the same vast majority agree with her calling this hate speech is exactly and precisely your own personal conjecture and baseless speculation. Wishful thinking, run amok.

    Do you see the difference there, Un, because it’s an important one - you tried to refute my factual statement with a fictitious one of your own making, and then tried to link them together, ostensibly via magic, and whereby both would fall if one - including your own made up one - was invalidated.

    And who says it’s hate speech? Her? Who nominated her to be the single determiner of this? Do the rest of us get a say, too?

    And even if it were hate speech (it isn’t) - you are the one who added the unnecessary qualifiers of her action being either legal or legislative - even when no one claimed as much. And why? Because you think that inserting some criteria that couldn’t be met - and which no one claimed to exist - would make it easy to shoot the larger and more important points down.

    Because you’re going to lose those.

    You know it.
    I know it.
    Everybody knows it.

    This is what you do.

    So, back to my question - if she isn’t sending out a call to action, seeking her followers and/or like-minded others to go after his advertisers in an attempt to ultimately silence an opinion to which she happens to disagree, then how else can her text possibly be understood? Tell me, man. Educate me. Show me how I’m missing some other, alternative and obvious truth as to what she meant and why she intended it, if not in an effort to squelch his saying something to which she disagreed?

    Aren’t liberals supposed to be the champions of freedom of expression, diversity and inclusion, Un? Y’all are increasingly looking like a bunch of lying hypocrites over shit just such as this.
     
  5. Unimane

    Unimane Kill "The Caucasian"

    All this jabber and you can't answer the basic question you posed. How is she violating his personal freedoms? She isn't. (Perhaps she should just call him an "enemy of the people" and it would be alright.).

    There, done. See how easy that was for me when I don't take the untenable position?

    *Also, please cite evidence re: Trump and the media since you claim to have it.
     
    Last edited: Jul 11, 2019
  6. Tenacious D

    Tenacious D The law is of supreme importance, or no importance

    Who said “violating personal freedoms”, Un? You are, again, placing favorable qualifiers which do not exist, and in an effort to obfuscate the original statement, and so as to more easily defeat it. It’s the Straw Man Fallacy, come to life.

    What I’ve said, and continue to say, is that the Left has long loved and still touts themselves as being this bulwark and defender of personal freedoms, but only insofar as it serves an acceptable purpose and aim to which they agree, or wish to advance. However, they will then and routinely attempt to actively deny, stifle and undermine the free exercise of those same rights by others, whenever and wherever they happen to disagree, and in an intentional effort to stymie and stifle those thoughts and ideas to which they dislike, disagree or do not prefer.

    And in that regard, your side is shown to be not only simple liars, but hypocrites who are not lovers of personal freedom, at all, but more ironically instead, to appear more akin to facists, and which you also claim to oppose.

    It seems the Left believe fascism to be perfectly acceptable, but when only they have the power and control to wield it. Hell, it seems that they may actually prefer it, at times.

    And Congresswoman Omar’s reaction to Carlson’s comments - and those which sparked my comments and this discussion - is but the latest in a long line of evidences which supports my assertion.

    She didn’t like or agree with what he said.

    She then took to Twitter to call it “hate speech” - as if that is any reasonable standard or she is any worthy determiner of such any such thing.

    She then called on her followers and like-minded others to pressure the sponsoring advertisers of his show, and specifically so as to prevent his continued funding, and did so both knowingly and intentionally to deny him the platform and his audience to continue to say and express those ideas to which she does not agree or prefer.

    But this isn’t unique to her, by any means, but is a symptom of a larger (and growing) problem with the Left. Even in the recent past, the Left has made a habit and forming a disturbing pattern of denying, stifling and undermining the same free exercise of other persons and messages to which they disagree, or disdain.

    Denying campus speakers, disturbing peaceable assembly, and even at times, including masked and violent vigilantism in the streets.

    It’s exactly what I said it was, and she’s doing exactly what I’m claiming, here. Exactly. You can’t offer an alternative explanation for why she did this, and what she intended, because none exists, and what I’m saying is perfectly true.

    You know it.
    I know it.
    Everyone knows it.
     
  7. IP

    IP Super Moderator

    by tenny's logic, he is violating unimane's first amendment rights on a regular basis.
     
  8. Tenacious D

    Tenacious D The law is of supreme importance, or no importance

    Wrong. I’ve never denied Un’s right to speak, to express any opinion, or otherwise sought to deny him any platform or audience by which to do so. No matter how stupid, silly, despicable, duplicitous, illogical or goofy his take, I’ve neither denied nor attempted to stifle it.

    Now, you can argue that it might have been in his ultimate best interest for me to have stifled some of his silliness, but that’s another story, and still I haven’t.
     
  9. JohnnyQuickkick

    JohnnyQuickkick Calcio correspondent

    She’s not advocating for his first amendment rights to be violated, per se, but she definitely made an attempt to remove his platform, which isn’t really the same thing, but is still pretty lame if you ask me
     
  10. IP

    IP Super Moderator

    you've referred to his words as being hate speech and roundly criticized him on multiple occasions as being racist against whites. what are the only rules of this forum, again?

    Calling for boycotts is calling for market-based responses, not government censorship.

    what you described is capitalism. exactly capitalism.
     
  11. droski

    droski Traffic Criminal

    Another white supremacist

     
  12. Unimane

    Unimane Kill "The Caucasian"

    TennyD response to the tweet of Omar -

    This must be a hoax, because if the last several years have proven anything undeniably true, it’s that the left places an unwavering and preeminent value on personal freedom* - such as the freedom of speech.



    * Until you use it for something in a way that they don’t like it, or toward any end that is oppositional to their own. See freedom of speech, to bear arms, etc. - in those cases, well, [uck fay] you, I guess.


    So, yes, I'm responding to this, so you might want to revise your first paragraph since you specifically say "personal freedoms". It's not a first amendment violation, "personal freedoms", as you say elsewhere, and you know this, but choose not to do so because you don't like her message or she's attacking one of the immigrations shit bags you like in Carlson.

    Then, you go on these dumbass rants trying to, simultaneously, justify your dumbass statement and, two, formulate some convoluted theory about the "stupid liberals", who are the most heinous and terrible usurpers of freedom, personal rights, etc., etc.. Omar expressed the idea people, and businesses, should not support those who express what she determines hate speech. It has nothing to do with your accusation of denying, stifling or anything regarding free speech. Carlson is not entitled to a platform, nor is his show being supported by advertisers his personal right. And, yet, she didn't even do anything to actually take away those advertisers or threaten them in any way.

    Oh, but, if you do think her tweeting "Advertisers should not be underwriting hate speech" is a gross violation of freedom and mere negative tweet is a method of signaling to her denizens to go after a person's platform or free speech, hoo boy, do I have a guy for you.
     
  13. TennTradition

    TennTradition Super Moderator

    People fight to get their kids in the immersive schools around us that spend half the day in Spanish. You can pull your child out of their school and send to a non-zoned public if you’re willing to drive them, but there is a lottery.

    Funny the difference regionally from fighting to get your kid the chance to have it to paying for private so you don’t have to. Is your approach common around you?
     
  14. IP

    IP Super Moderator

    I think being bilingual is a very valuable skill for one's entire life like few things are. I wish I was fluent in something in addition to English, and will do everything in my power for any kid of mine to be. Spanish, French, or whatever. but something.
     
    justingroves likes this.
  15. droski

    droski Traffic Criminal

    no one that has any money sends their kids to public school here. personally i don't think the value of being bilingual outweighs the detriment of not being taught math and english in your native language. also the number of non native speakers slows down the teaching for the native speakers. btw i went to a public school when i was a kid with a bunch of kids who didn't speak english and i wasn't learning shit.
     
  16. droski

    droski Traffic Criminal

    unless you are in construction, manufacturing, or retail, speaking fluent spanish isn't as helpful as you'd think. speaking fluent french is helpful for the one month out of your life you are in france.
     
  17. VolDad

    VolDad Super Moderator

    I find it funny when people for whom English is not their first language apologize to me for their perceived poor English. I always say, don't apologize; I only speak English and am impressed by anyone who can speak more than 1 language.
     
    cpninja and IP like this.
  18. Unimane

    Unimane Kill "The Caucasian"

    Actually, being bilingual has been proven to improve a number of brain functions, including problem solving, learning new material and a host of other benefits. It's an incredibly valuable tool to have.

    Sorry, I'm not buying the idea that people living in a well off area don't have a viable and quality public school. They are sending their kids to private school over public school based upon perception, reputation. There are Advanced Placement classes, Honors classes, I'm sure, which don't involve holding kids back because of ESL students.
     
  19. Ssmiff

    Ssmiff Went to the White House...Again

    Uni thats not the case in many areas around Memphis/Germantown/Southwind
     
  20. droski

    droski Traffic Criminal

    i think it's a valuable tool to be taught in your own language and be able to understand the subject better rather than spending your time translating, but each to their own.

    my wife's a teacher. she sees the kids who come from public schools and the private schools. i'd think she'd know. the level of give a shit is far lower at the public schools too. my niece was a straight A student at her public school, one of the highest rated in the area. she switched to private school and had straight Cs.
     

Share This Page