Chatham County Online BBS

Chatham County Online => This, That and Everything Else => Topic started by: NC YIPPIE on March 06, 2017, 04:34:21 PM



Title: A Violent Attack on Free Speech at Middlebury
Post by: NC YIPPIE on March 06, 2017, 04:34:21 PM
Liberals must defend the right of conservative students to invite speakers of their choice, even if they find their views abhorrent.

My fellow liberals, please watch the following video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a6EASuhefeI (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a6EASuhefeI)

It suggests that something has gone badly wrong on the campus left. The events leading up to the video are as follows. One of the student groups at Middlebury College is called The American Enterprise Club. According to its website, the Club aims ďto promote Ö free enterprise, a limited federal government, a strong national defense.Ē In other words, itís a group for political conservatives.

This year, the AEI Club invited Dr. Charles Murray to speak. Thatís crucial to understanding what followed. When leftists protest right-wing speakers on campus, they often deny that they are infringing upon free speech.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/03/middlebury-free-speech-violence/518667/ (https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/03/middlebury-free-speech-violence/518667/)


Title: Re: A Violent Attack on Free Speech at Middlebury
Post by: Pi on March 06, 2017, 05:18:34 PM
Never heard of Dr. Murray, but he is one of so many that have been shouted down.  This has been going on for years at universities and has only gotten worse in the past couple years.  Liberals value diversity of everything...except diversity of thought.

Why would students not behave this way?  Their liberal role models like Obama have worked to silence dissent.  Whether it was wiretapping journalists or using the IRS to intimidate right of center organizations, regressive elected officials have made it clear that they won't tolerate opposing views and will do whatever is necessary to intimidate others into silence.

Debate is dead.  There's no talking to liberals and trying to explain your point of view.  The constant stream of false accusations (racism, sexism, etc) are meant to silence and shame opponents.  There's no longer an attempt to understand where people are coming from. 

So what we get instead is:

Skeptical about the climate change alarmists predictions?  You should be put in jail!  (Bill Nye)
Voted for Trump?  You're a racist.
Feel we need more border security?  You're a racist.
Want to own a semi-automatic firearm?  You're mentally deranged and inherently violent.

And the list goes on and on.  This is the Brave New World brought about by emboldened regressives.  I find it amazing that liberals lined up to defend Obama's manipulation of the media and now are losing their collective minds over Trump.

Stifling free speech is not the path that any elected official should take.  What Obama did doesn't excuse what Trump is doing.  While I understand Trump's frustration with the media, barring them from press conferences is the wrong move.  Allowing bloggers and others who are usually not allowed to participate in those briefings is a good thing. But the key is to expand the news networks.  Print media is dying anyway.  Some of the biggest stories have been broken by tabloids and bloggers.  People are getting wise to the slant of the main stream.  They can see that the polls were manufactured that showed Hillary so many points ahead.  Have some faith in people to be able to determine the difference.

While the Constitution applies to government and not to individuals, we should all have enough respect for one another to hear each other out.

Yipster, it appears that your heart is in the right place.  But I wonder if you're willing to take this message to UNC Chapel Hill the next time a controversial person speaks instead of just posting it on the internet.

I suspect your reasons for avoiding that situation are the same as mine.  I don't particularly want to be beaten senseless because I happen to hold the "wrong" point of view. 

But I told you before that if the social justice warriors got their way it wouldn't be pretty.  The SJW stuff that you yourself have pushed on this board is what causes this type of violent intolerance.  Take a moment and see if you can connect the dots on your own.  Or don't.



Title: Re: A Violent Attack on Free Speech at Middlebury
Post by: 1911A on March 06, 2017, 10:32:05 PM
Quote
While I understand Trump's frustration with the media, barring them from press conferences is the wrong move.

Newp, gotta disagree here.  It's not a permanent ban, but certain of the media need to be put in their places.  Think of, ohhh, Mika Brezwhatever on MSNBC averring that telling us what to think is their job.  Right?  Certain of the media need to be taught not to lie and that it isn't their job to change the world; it's to report the facts, not the Fake News.

Look here:  the Praetorian Guard media put out stories (NY Times/WashPo) weeks ago about the FISA Court ordered taps on Trump et al re: Russia and they've hung out there for all this time.  Yesterday (Sunday), James Clapper, former direct of National Intel., interviewed by Chuck Todd, denies there was wiretapping of Trump and he said he would know.  So, who's lying here?  Can't depend on the Praetorian Guard, so how do we know?

As for Charles Murray, he co-authored "The Bell Curve", whereby he co-wrote of things the Left doesn't want talked about, thought about, or known about.

https://infogalactic.com/info/Charles_Murray_(political_scientist)



Title: Re: A Violent Attack on Free Speech at Middlebury
Post by: Pi on March 07, 2017, 01:01:59 AM
There's no such thing as the media being "put in their place" by the government.  Doing so is a violation of the 1st Amendment.  

It isn't up to the government to hold the media accountable.  That's up to us: the consumer.  We're the ones that can decide whether or not to partake of that media.  Whether the leftist media realizes it or not, they were defeated in November.

The more they struggle and deign to claim they know what is best for us, the more they reveal themselves.  The media and the government have failed us.  But they have done so because we've allowed them to.

Good old capitalism, not government edict, will ultimately vanquish those who would lie to us.  The founders knew that.  They also knew that a nation unable to grasp this concept would hardly be worth saving.


Title: Re: A Violent Attack on Free Speech at Middlebury
Post by: Ice Pilot2 on March 07, 2017, 08:15:56 AM
Yesterday (Sunday), James Clapper, former direct of National Intel., interviewed by Chuck Todd, denies there was wiretapping of Trump and he said he would know.


Clapper also went to great lengths to deny there was any evidence of The Trump Team having illegal or inappropriate meetings with Russian officials.

Guess which one of the two denials was played over and over and over while grilling various members of the Trump staff on Sunday evening and Monday?   Yep, you got it right.  


Title: Re: A Violent Attack on Free Speech at Middlebury
Post by: 1911A on March 07, 2017, 11:41:32 AM
There's no such thing as the media being "put in their place" by the government.  Doing so is a violation of the 1st Amendment.

Not so in the case of Trump denying them access to his pressers temporarily, which is what I pointed at.  There is no guaranteed access to the President in the 1st Amendment any and every time they want it.

Quote
It isn't up to the government to hold the media accountable.  That's up to us: the consumer.  We're the ones that can decide whether or not to partake of that media.  Whether the leftist media realizes it or not, they were defeated in November.

The more they struggle and deign to claim they know what is best for us, the more they reveal themselves.  The media and the government have failed us.  But they have done so because we've allowed them to.

I believe this is true and I also believe their game-play is to double-down now because they don't realize it, and the more ignorant -- or stubborn -- among us are going along with their lies.

Quote
Good old capitalism, not government edict, will ultimately vanquish those who would lie to us.  The founders knew that.  They also knew that a nation unable to grasp this concept would hardly be worth saving.


Title: Re: A Violent Attack on Free Speech at Middlebury
Post by: John Florida on March 08, 2017, 10:12:39 AM
There's no such thing as the media being "put in their place" by the government.  Doing so is a violation of the 1st Amendment.

Not so in the case of Trump denying them access to his pressers temporarily, which is what I pointed at.  There is no guaranteed access to the President in the 1st Amendment any and every time they want it.

Quote
It isn't up to the government to hold the media accountable.  That's up to us: the consumer.  We're the ones that can decide whether or not to partake of that media.  Whether the leftist media realizes it or not, they were defeated in November.

The more they struggle and deign to claim they know what is best for us, the more they reveal themselves.  The media and the government have failed us.  But they have done so because we've allowed them to.

I believe this is true and I also believe their game-play is to double-down now because they don't realize it, and the more ignorant -- or stubborn -- among us are going along with their lies.

Quote
Good old capitalism, not government edict, will ultimately vanquish those who would lie to us.  The founders knew that.  They also knew that a nation unable to grasp this concept would hardly be worth saving.

  I would think that if POTUS blocked all of them from attending that it would be a 1st amendment problem but the administration didn't do that only a few were left out.


Title: Re: A Violent Attack on Free Speech at Middlebury
Post by: wolfpat on March 09, 2017, 08:36:17 PM
He was doing them a favor by blocking them from the press conference. There was no need for them to attend since they were just going to make stuff up anyway.


Title: Re: A Violent Attack on Free Speech at Middlebury
Post by: NC YIPPIE on March 20, 2017, 06:49:25 PM
You're lying about the NYT printing anything about anyone ordering a wiretap of Trump or his posse of traitors. All the Times article said is that they tapped the Russians and by proxy whomever they spoke to - Cheeto was never the target. That's why you didn't quote the NYT and provided only your dubious paraphrase of wait for it...fake news.


Title: Re: A Violent Attack on Free Speech at Middlebury
Post by: 1911A on March 20, 2017, 09:47:49 PM
Screw you and your "you're lying".

Look more carefully at the NYT reports and and https://heatst.com/world/exclusive-fbi-granted-fisa-warrant-covering-trump-camps-ties-to-russia/

There were so many reports on this issue and from so many Praetorian Guard media, suffice it to say it's easy to mix up sources ... ya know, for people who have a life.

You are of TWANLOC. 



Title: Re: A Violent Attack on Free Speech at Middlebury
Post by: Pi on March 20, 2017, 09:50:35 PM
You're lying about the NYT printing anything about anyone ordering a wiretap of Trump or his posse of traitors. All the Times article said is that they tapped the Russians and by proxy whomever they spoke to - Cheeto was never the target. That's why you didn't quote the NYT and provided only your dubious paraphrase of wait for it...fake news.


Well, they wiretapped and hacked news reporters that weren't friendly to the Obama Admin.  For political reasons.  So it is entirely out of the realm of possibility that they would wiretap Trump for similar reasons.  Right?

Look, the government has been engaging in wholesale data collection in violation of our 4th Amendment rights.  They got caught spying on the Germans.  They have gotten caught doing a lot of things they shouldn't.

Did you not catch the last Wiki Leaks release?  What annoys me most is that everyone is looking at this distraction while much bigger and more important things are happening to OUR privacy.

And I guess we forget all the transmissions and meetings with Hillary's team and the Russians.  Or this:

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html?_r=0 (https://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html?_r=0)

I'll make a prediction and we'll see if it comes through.  Trump's relationship with Russian isn't going to be warm and fuzzy much longer.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/trumps-envoy-un-warns-russia-us-stands-firm-175958794.html (https://www.yahoo.com/news/trumps-envoy-un-warns-russia-us-stands-firm-175958794.html)


Title: Re: A Violent Attack on Free Speech at Middlebury
Post by: 1911A on March 20, 2017, 10:00:51 PM
He doesn't care about any of that; all he cares about is that I erroneously attributed to the NYT information from another source, so he could point finger and call, not mistaken, but LIAR.

Virtue signalling, cause he's the truth bringer, donchaknow.

What I think about him, and people like him, I cannot write here, but be sure, they are pushing a reckoning.


Title: Re: A Violent Attack on Free Speech at Middlebury
Post by: 1911A on March 20, 2017, 10:13:41 PM
(http://static.snopes.com/app/uploads/2017/03/new-york-times-wiretap.jpg)

........ "surveilling Russians" and instead of masking the Americans involved, leaked.



Title: Re: A Violent Attack on Free Speech at Middlebury
Post by: 1911A on March 20, 2017, 10:18:52 PM
You're lying about the NYT printing anything about anyone ordering a wiretap of Trump or his posse of traitors. All the Times article said is that they tapped the Russians and by proxy whomever they spoke to - Cheeto was never the target. That's why you didn't quote the NYT and provided only your dubious paraphrase of wait for it...fake news.


Well, they wiretapped and hacked news reporters that weren't friendly to the Obama Admin.  For political reasons.  So it is entirely out of the realm of possibility that they would wiretap Trump for similar reasons.  Right?

Look, the government has been engaging in wholesale data collection in violation of our 4th Amendment rights.  They got caught spying on the Germans.  They have gotten caught doing a lot of things they shouldn't.

Did you not catch the last Wiki Leaks release?  What annoys me most is that everyone is looking at this distraction while much bigger and more important things are happening to OUR privacy.

And I guess we forget all the transmissions and meetings with Hillary's team and the Russians.  Or this:

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html?_r=0 (https://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html?_r=0)

I'll make a prediction and we'll see if it comes through.  Trump's relationship with Russian isn't going to be warm and fuzzy much longer.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/trumps-envoy-un-warns-russia-us-stands-firm-175958794.html (https://www.yahoo.com/news/trumps-envoy-un-warns-russia-us-stands-firm-175958794.html)


About us, we're toast; they're spying on some of the most influential people in the world with no repercussions so far.  When they need a crime, then their fingers will go walking through the metadata on us to find one.


Title: Re: A Violent Attack on Free Speech at Middlebury
Post by: Pi on March 20, 2017, 10:19:35 PM
He doesn't care about any of that; all he cares about is that I erroneously attributed to the NYT information from another source, so he could point finger and call, not mistaken, but LIAR.

Virtue signalling, cause he's the truth bringer, donchaknow.

What I think about him, and people like him, I cannot write here, but be sure, they are pushing a reckoning.

I might have made the same exact mistake.  But I've seen a lot of articles lately about this.

I'm sure some people are quite happily dodging the thing I said about SJWs and their culpability when it comes to the current war many on the left are waging on free speech.

That's the truth that some people don't want to acknowledge.  Along with the truth about our 4th Amendment infringements I mentioned above.  Why?  Because that happened on the last guy's watch.



Title: Re: A Violent Attack on Free Speech at Middlebury
Post by: Pi on March 20, 2017, 10:33:20 PM
About us, we're toast; they're spying on some of the most influential people in the world with no repercussions so far.  When they need a crime, then their fingers will go walking through the metadata on us to find one.

It's entirely possible that the world is not run by the people we think are running it.  The more I read and understand, the more I think the world is run by people who have sufficient leverage on those in power.

I once overheard a very rich, very influential man remark to his colleague that "nothing will change with all those damn child molesters in the Beltway and the Hague".

At the time I was just some kid in a suit and dark sunglasses, trying to look like a piece of furniture.  But over the years I've begun to wonder if his utterance wasn't just hyperbolic.

There are many dark and dangerous things in this world.  Ordinary people, fortunately, have no idea that most of them exist.  But I'm here to tell you that those things often lurk in positions of power.  I cannot stress enough how important it is NOT to let government exercise so much influence over us.  

They've already shown no fear and have blatantly and publicly intimidated us.  There's nothing to stop them from kicking it up another notch.  The swamp needs to be drained, and with each passing day I can't decide whether or not Trump is what's needed to clear out the rot or if he's part of it.

We'll find out soon enough either way.  No doubt 1911A is right.  We're toast.


Title: Re: A Violent Attack on Free Speech at Middlebury
Post by: NC YIPPIE on March 21, 2017, 11:06:16 PM
Let the violent purse swinging from the bedpan granny begin!

Such a sensitive little snowflake, my, my. You said the tap was ordered on Trump, you were wrong. It even says it in the image you posted. A know it all like you doesn't make that mistake, you did it on purpose and got called out for your lying. Then you double down and post a picture of an article that says "It is not clear whether the intercepted communications had anything to do with Mr. Trumpís campaign, or Mr. Trump himself." So no, it still doesn't say they wiretapped Cheeto. You seem confused & still have no Post quote. Have a problem with it? Stop lying.

Also, STFU with your 'reckoning' threats grandma and go back to nap time.



Title: Re: A Violent Attack on Free Speech at Middlebury
Post by: Pi on March 22, 2017, 08:06:12 AM
Let the violent purse swinging from the bedpan granny begin!

Such a sensitive little snowflake, my, my. You said the tap was ordered on Trump, you were wrong. It even says it in the image you posted. A know it all like you doesn't make that mistake, you did it on purpose and got called out for your lying. Then you double down and post a picture of an article that says "It is not clear whether the intercepted communications had anything to do with Mr. Trumpís campaign, or Mr. Trump himself." So no, it still doesn't say they wiretapped Cheeto. You seem confused & still have no Post quote. Have a problem with it? Stop lying.

Also, STFU with your 'reckoning' threats grandma and go back to nap time.



LOL

(https://cdn.meme.am/instances/400x400/69352336.jpg)


Title: Re: A Violent Attack on Free Speech at Middlebury
Post by: NC YIPPIE on March 22, 2017, 01:03:14 PM
Yeah, I'm suuuuper upset.

I can't bring myself to post again! BTW way, is TWANLOC like Tone Loc?

(http://ma.cdnmonster.com/files/al/4L4/KpRsYJmjKd.jpg)

Did the Obama admin actually wiretap reporters? I'm sorry, memory is a bit foggy. I thought it was they had asked for phone records while looking for a leaker, which is really not good but also not the same thing as actually listening in on calls. I think they 'tracked movement' or something along those lines as well. Also, not good. Damn, must be getting old, but I think I spoke out about it at the time right here on this forum. Anyway, I will Google that a bit more later when I have some time.

Is shouting down the same as violating the first amendment? I don't support this kind of stuff in general, but asking for a friend....

Also, if 2% of liberals on campus show up to do this, does this men the other 98% support them? As for UNC, I believe Tancredo returned to speak with little to no incident, so it has definitely improved here locally. Speaking of diversity in thought, I noticed that when Ben Shapiro came to visit UNC, they made it a point that he was not going to debate anyone, even when it was requested. He does pretty well in those situations, so I thought it was a bit surprising. I don't think either 'side' values diversity of thought when they are trying to push their agenda. Look what has happened recently to say Tomi Lahren when she said she was pro choice, or pretty much any conservative who is pro choice or supports Medicare expansion. Both sides do their thing I guess. But you are right in this specific case, where you don't see conservatives shouting down liberal speakers on campus. That is true. I imagine it has a large part to do with their numbers and fear of confrontation or whatever.

From what I know, there is a split - some students actually believe that what they consider 'hate speech' is not the same as allowing 'free speech' which doesn't make much sense to me. There is perhaps a bit of support for this view of the years with 'fighting words' and that kind of language in decisions. But the ACLU and many others have spoken out against such a line of thinking very clearly. (I guess that shows some diversity of thought, eh? As there are many, many liberal ACLU supporters.) Others think that although these people have a right to speak, they don't have a right to not be shouted out or disrupted. The final split would be those who cross the line and throw things or set off fire alarms or whatever, I guess anarchists.

There's also a constant stream for the right saying 'if you are for universal health care you are a communist who hates America' and such. If you support abortion at all, liberals are also said to want to murder babies and somehow love abortion, as opposed to loving a choice for others. Debate is happening right here and all across the country every day, it is clearly not dead as you say. It may have gotten a bit more heated, but such is the ebb and flow of life. I'm sure people had similar thoughts in the civil rights era. Have some belief in what many scientists are saying? You hate America and all people who have a business. Bring up racial disparities in applying the law? You must be a racebaiter obsessed with race. Support enforcing existing gun laws more or thinking about changing gun laws? You want to take everyone's guns.

People on the right in this state have said they want to round up the gays inside a barbwire fence and watch them die. However, as far as common ground, I think you and I share some here in that I agree that stifling free speech is not the path that any elected official should take and that not allowing open debate on campus stages is bad. I also agree with you that allowing new media folks in is good.

However, I don't actually believe the polling was manipulated as you seem to claim. I believe that many people simply voted for Trump on the down low and that many people who voted were never polled. I've taken this message to Chapel Hill and in fact complained that they didn't do a better job with the first Tancredo situation. I'm not taking any credit, but clearly they listened and did much better the second time around. I'm definitely not afraid of being beaten by anyone, lol.








Title: Re: A Violent Attack on Free Speech at Middlebury
Post by: Pi on March 22, 2017, 01:14:28 PM
Yeah, I'm suuuuper upset.


(http://www.mememaker.net/static/images/memes/4579085.jpg)


Title: Re: A Violent Attack on Free Speech at Middlebury
Post by: Pi on March 22, 2017, 01:57:29 PM
Did the Obama admin actually wiretap reporters? I'm sorry, memory is a bit foggy. I thought it was they had asked for phone records while looking for a leaker, which is really not good but also not the same thing as actually listening in on calls. I think they 'tracked movement' or something along those lines as well. Also, not good. Damn, must be getting old, but I think I spoke out about it at the time right here on this forum. Anyway, I will Google that a bit more later when I have some time.


Google Sharyl Attkinsson.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/cbs-news-confirms-sharyl-attkissons-computer-hacked/ (http://www.cbsnews.com/news/cbs-news-confirms-sharyl-attkissons-computer-hacked/)

Is shouting down the same as violating the first amendment? I don't support this kind of stuff in general, but asking for a friend....


Suuure you're asking for a friend.  The 1st Amendment is specifically designed to restrain government.  That doesn't mean that individuals don't keep each other from being able to speak freely.  You have to understand that while the 1st Amendment might not apply to a private university, those that would shout others down are certainly violating the spirit of the law, if not the amendment.  How that applies to a public University is another matter and that's the battle that is currently being fought.  There is precedent for this with regard to public schools.  One case that comes to mind is Tinker v. Des Moines.

It's a bit ironic that Tinker was about peace arm bands being worn at school.  Oh how the left has changed!

Also, if 2% of liberals on campus show up to do this, does this men the other 98% support them?


Where did those numbers come from?  It doesn't mean that all of them support those disruptive actions.  But the fact that it happens, the fact that the universities often do nothing or even support it, and the student body rarely, if ever, organizes a movement to combat it, that's rather telling isn't it?

As for UNC, I believe Tancredo returned to speak with little to no incident, so it has definitely improved here locally. Speaking of diversity in thought, I noticed that when Ben Shapiro came to visit UNC, they made it a point that he was not going to debate anyone, even when it was requested. He does pretty well in those situations, so I thought it was a bit surprising.


So let me get this straight.  Shapiro doesn't agree to debate, when it's quite possible that the goal was to get someone on stage to shut him down by shouting him down.  But you failed to also note that what Shapiro typically does is give a speech outlining his view and then he takes questions from the crowd.  Yet, you construe his unwillingness to turn his speech portion into a debate as not tolerating diversity of thought?  That's pretty thin.

I don't think either 'side' values diversity of thought when they are trying to push their agenda. Look what has happened recently to say Tomi Lahren when she said she was pro choice, or pretty much any conservative who is pro choice or supports Medicare expansion. Both sides do their thing I guess. But you are right in this specific case, where you don't see conservatives shouting down liberal speakers on campus. That is true. I imagine it has a large part to do with their numbers and fear of confrontation or whatever.


What happened to Tomi Lauren had to do with Glenn Beck.  She'll continue to have lots of right of center followers, which goes to show that the right is certainly willing to tolerate a bit of  division.  I've got lots of libertarian and conservative friends.  They often disagree with each other on lots of topics.  But only those on the left have been the ones to end a friendship over a difference of opinion.  I've seen it happen many times since November.  

Conservatives are usually a lot more polite that liberals.  Look out the disparity in violence when it comes to left wing protests and right wing ones.  That's a huge clue.  Conservatives and libertarians largely want to be left alone.  Liberals are the ones that think they know best how to order the world.  As such, they are the ones that have been confrontational as of late.  It wasn't always this way.  The roles were reversed in the 1960's.  But times change.

From what I know, there is a split - some students actually believe that what they consider 'hate speech' is not the same as allowing 'free speech' which doesn't make much sense to me. There is perhaps a bit of support for this view of the years with 'fighting words' and that kind of language in decisions. But the ACLU and many others have spoken out against such a line of thinking very clearly. (I guess that shows some diversity of thought, eh? As there are many, many liberal ACLU supporters.) Others think that although these people have a right to speak, they don't have a right to not be shouted out or disrupted. The final split would be those who cross the line and throw things or set off fire alarms or whatever, I guess anarchists.


I see the left often claims that the violent members of their tribe are anarchists.  Sorry, but I'm not buying that.  That's passing the buck, and not accepting responsibility for the actions of leftists.  

There's also a constant stream for the right saying 'if you are for universal health care you are a communist who hates America' and such. If you support abortion at all, liberals are also said to want to murder babies and somehow love abortion, as opposed to loving a choice for others.


No matter how much you want to believe otherwise, abortion ends a life.  End of story.  Full stop.  "Loving to legally kill" isn't what I would consider a virtue.  Obviously, your mileage varies.

You're also restating opposition for universal healthcare in the most negative way possible.  One of the most cherished American traditions is a senses of independence.  While that has withered over time, it hasn't gone away completely.  Many people are simply concerned about giving government the power to make our healthcare decisions.  You have to  understand that going to this system might mean that everyone gets some kind of coverage.  But the tradeoff for this is choice.  I never seen lefties that are willing to admit this.  What I see instead is such a system described only in a positive light.

Debate is happening right here and all across the country every day, it is clearly not dead as you say.


Debate is dead or dying precisely because of people like you.  I don't mean that to sound quite so personal, but look what you said above.  Look how you characterized opposition to universal healthcare.  Look back at the race baiting that you've done on this forum.

Real debate has to do with discussing the relative merits of policies.  It involves distilling those ideas down to their elements and determining whether or not those things are workable solutions.  It involves an honest discussion that involves what the person is actually saying.  

In our discussions, you have struggled mightily to respond to what I've actually said and instead resorted to strawmen.  And the fact of the matter is, you're one of the most reasonable people on the left that I've encountered.  That's a sad state of affairs.

But before you get your boxers in a bunch, understand that this phenomenon is not limited to the left.  It is something that characterizes both sides.  Look back at the talk shows of yesteryear and you'll find people like Milton Friedman debating things with Donahue.  You'll find discussions between Gore Vidal and William Buckley.

What do we have today?  Screeching heads talking over one another in an attempt to produce the pithiest sound byte.  The left's idea of debate is to shut someone down by accusing them of racism or bigotry.  It's the force of the accusation, not the argument, that is killing debate.

It may have gotten a bit more heated, but such is the ebb and flow of life. I'm sure people had similar thoughts in the civil rights era. Have some belief in what many scientists are saying? You hate America and all people who have a business. Bring up racial disparities in applying the law? You must be a racebaiter obsessed with race. Support enforcing existing gun laws more or thinking about changing gun laws? You want to take everyone's guns.


You're once again making generalizations.  The left says that unless you believe what some scientists are saying you're a denier.  Bill Nye said "deniers" should be incarcerated.  Right here in Chatham County, the commissioners used environmental laws as a means to suspend and impede businesses from being established here.  That's a fact.  Bringing up racial disparities isn't racist.  Unless you're a white person.  And then it suddenly is.  The left isn't "supporting existing gun laws".  That's absolute nonsense.  They want more restrictions.  I'm honestly laughing at this characterization.  (remember Feinstein saying "Mr. and Ms. America, turn them in"?)

People on the right in this state have said they want to round up the gays inside a barbwire fence and watch them die. However, as far as common ground, I think you and I share some here in that I agree that stifling free speech is not the path that any elected official should take and that not allowing open debate on campus stages is bad. I also agree with you that allowing new media folks in is good.


I've heard black people say the same about white people.  Are you particularly concerned that's a possibility in either case?  I'm not.  I won't stand by and let it happen.

However, I don't actually believe the polling was manipulated as you seem to claim. I believe that many people simply voted for Trump on the down low and that many people who voted were never polled. I've taken this message to Chapel Hill and in fact complained that they didn't do a better job with the first Tancredo situation. I'm not taking any credit, but clearly they listened and did much better the second time around. I'm definitely not afraid of being beaten by anyone, lol.


Please explain to me the disparity between polling and the election results.  I find it really unlikely that it would swing that many percentage points based on people voting "on the down low".  

If in fact many people who voted were never polled...then that's yet another problem with the poll, isn't it?  Yip, take some time, and instead of giving me a knee-jerk reaction, as you are so apt to do, check out "oversampling" and you'll see what I mean.  

I'm not afraid of being beaten either.  I'm a big fellow, which usually dissuades most people from trying to harm me.  But I've also spent the majority of my adult life learning how to defend myself and my family.

Good for you when it comes to going to UNC and voicing concerns.  If in fact that actually happened.  It doesn't square with your online persona here, which makes excuses or downplays that which the left is responsible for.  


Title: Re: A Violent Attack on Free Speech at Middlebury
Post by: John Florida on March 22, 2017, 06:26:40 PM
Yeah, I'm suuuuper upset.

I can't bring myself to post again! BTW way, is TWANLOC like Tone Loc?

([url]http://ma.cdnmonster.com/files/al/4L4/KpRsYJmjKd.jpg[/url])

Did the Obama admin actually wiretap reporters? I'm sorry, memory is a bit foggy. I thought it was they had asked for phone records while looking for a leaker, which is really not good but also not the same thing as actually listening in on calls. I think they 'tracked movement' or something along those lines as well. Also, not good. Damn, must be getting old, but I think I spoke out about it at the time right here on this forum. Anyway, I will Google that a bit more later when I have some time.

Is shouting down the same as violating the first amendment? I don't support this kind of stuff in general, but asking for a friend....

Also, if 2% of liberals on campus show up to do this, does this men the other 98% support them? As for UNC, I believe Tancredo returned to speak with little to no incident, so it has definitely improved here locally. Speaking of diversity in thought, I noticed that when Ben Shapiro came to visit UNC, they made it a point that he was not going to debate anyone, even when it was requested. He does pretty well in those situations, so I thought it was a bit surprising. I don't think either 'side' values diversity of thought when they are trying to push their agenda. Look what has happened recently to say Tomi Lahren when she said she was pro choice, or pretty much any conservative who is pro choice or supports Medicare expansion. Both sides do their thing I guess. But you are right in this specific case, where you don't see conservatives shouting down liberal speakers on campus. That is true. I imagine it has a large part to do with their numbers and fear of confrontation or whatever.

From what I know, there is a split - some students actually believe that what they consider 'hate speech' is not the same as allowing 'free speech' which doesn't make much sense to me. There is perhaps a bit of support for this view of the years with 'fighting words' and that kind of language in decisions. But the ACLU and many others have spoken out against such a line of thinking very clearly. (I guess that shows some diversity of thought, eh? As there are many, many liberal ACLU supporters.) Others think that although these people have a right to speak, they don't have a right to not be shouted out or disrupted. The final split would be those who cross the line and throw things or set off fire alarms or whatever, I guess anarchists.

There's also a constant stream for the right saying 'if you are for universal health care you are a communist who hates America' and such. If you support abortion at all, liberals are also said to want to murder babies and somehow love abortion, as opposed to loving a choice for others. Debate is happening right here and all across the country every day, it is clearly not dead as you say. It may have gotten a bit more heated, but such is the ebb and flow of life. I'm sure people had similar thoughts in the civil rights era. Have some belief in what many scientists are saying? You hate America and all people who have a business. Bring up racial disparities in applying the law? You must be a racebaiter obsessed with race. Support enforcing existing gun laws more or thinking about changing gun laws? You want to take everyone's guns.

People on the right in this state have said they want to round up the gays inside a barbwire fence and watch them die. However, as far as common ground, I think you and I share some here in that I agree that stifling free speech is not the path that any elected official should take and that not allowing open debate on campus stages is bad. I also agree with you that allowing new media folks in is good.

However, I don't actually believe the polling was manipulated as you seem to claim. I believe that many people simply voted for Trump on the down low and that many people who voted were never polled. I've taken this message to Chapel Hill and in fact complained that they didn't do a better job with the first Tancredo situation. I'm not taking any credit, but clearly they listened and did much better the second time around. I'm definitely not afraid of being beaten by anyone, lol.









   Of course they asked.........

James Rosen: Fox News reporter targeted as 'co- conspirator' in spying case

The FBI sought and obtained a warrant to seize all of Rosen's correspondence with Kim, and an additional two days' worth of Rosen's personal email, the Post reported. The bureau also obtained Rosen's phone records and used security badge records to track his movements to and from the State Department.



  They also tapped his parents phone.