Republicans for POTUS, 2016 Edition

RChildress107 said:
I'd actually be OK with criminal penalties for displaying hate symbols that are visible from public property. (I understand that would be considered unconstitutional).
Click to expand...

Germany prohibits the display of the swastika or other Nazi flags, as do some other countries. From what I've read, some right wing groups in Europe will display the stars and bars as an alternative. Maybe Vad can comment on that.
 
cville deac said:
Germany prohibits the display of the swastika or other Nazi flags, as do some other countries. From what I've read, some right wing groups in Europe will display the stars and bars as an alternative. Maybe Vad can comment on that.
Click to expand...

This is a really interesting piece that was in the WaPo a few months ago about the confederate flag being flown in other countries, notably in Italy, Brazil, France, Spain, Eastern Europe, and Germany, where civil war reenactments have been becoming popular in recent years. This quote sums up its use in Germany:

"Bizarrely, American Civil War reenactions have become popular in Germany, with significant numbers of Germans preferring to fight on the Confederate side. "I think some of the Confederate reenactors in Germany are acting out Nazi fantasies of racial superiority," Wolfgang Hochbruck, a professor of American Studies at the University of Freiburg, once told American journalist Tony Horwitz. "They are obsessed with your war because they cannot celebrate their own vanquished racists"."
 
Junebug said:
If by "Junebug's world" you mean "the United States of America," you're right.

You can put up whatever racist signs you want. Signs on private property are never going to constitute fighting words.
Click to expand...

According to nine lawyers who are not representative of American Society or something (to borrow from Scalia).
 
RChildress107 said:
I get that it's a pretty scary concept for rich white males to entertain the thought that maybe the rich white males who wrote the constitution over 200 years ago, and the mostly rich white male lawyers who have interpreted it since, didn't get it exactly right.
Click to expand...

Says the rich white male.
 
"Members are privately discussing a list of demands to make to McCarthy. Conservatives want slots on top committees, assurances from leaders they will get input on bills before they go to the floor, and ‎a promise Republicans will follow through on pledges to dismantle President Barack Obama's policies."


I'm disgusted by politicians making pledges (Norquist, this, etc.) to anything other than the Constitution, the USA, and their constituents. Do your fucking job. Represent your constituency, be selfless, put solutions above your re-election angle or stop taking an oath of office.
 
ONW said:
"Members are privately discussing a list of demands to make to McCarthy. Conservatives want slots on top committees, assurances from leaders they will get input on bills before they go to the floor, and ‎a promise Republicans will follow through on pledges to dismantle President Barack Obama's policies."


I'm disgusted by politicians making pledges (Norquist, this, etc.) to anything other than the Constitution, the USA, and their constituents. Do your fucking job. Represent your constituency, be selfless, put solutions above your re-election angle or stop taking an oath of office.
Click to expand...

+1000.
 
RChildress107 said:
I get that it's a pretty scary concept for rich white males to entertain the thought that maybe the rich white males who wrote the constitution over 200 years ago, and the mostly rich white male lawyers who have interpreted it since, didn't get it exactly right.
Click to expand...

George Orwell's 1984 soldier for the state.
 
Junebug said:
The instinct to regulate speech with which we disagree is one of the most dangerous impulses to ordered liberty out there. If you disagree with an idea, come up with a better one. If you can't do that, then step aside and let someone else do it. If the speech you disagree with is truly bad, someone will.
Click to expand...

Almost as dangerous as the instinct to take away someone's liberty based on speech we disagree with. And yet we do both.
 
Not a very good week for the GOP. I've been kinda out of it with work and family stuff, but getting caught up. sheesh, what a shitshow.

1) Planned Parenthood - really botched this hearing. They don't even understand the details of what they are arguing against. Not good. Why push this issue right now anyway? Shouldn't the focus be on winning Ohio, Penn, NC, FL, etc? Do they give a fuck about PP in purple states?
2) Trump is still the only Republican raising anyone's pulse. Not good.
3) frontrunner for New speaker makes dunderheaded Benghazi/Hillary comment.

For a party with supposedly such good ideas, why can't they articulate them and deliver them? This is all just bullshit.

Sanders 2016!!!!!
 
Junebug said:
The instinct to regulate speech with which we disagree is one of the most dangerous impulses to ordered liberty out there. If you disagree with an idea, come up with a better one. If you can't do that, then step aside and let someone else do it. If the speech you disagree with is truly bad, someone will.
Click to expand...

This makes no sense. Is this some free market theory of speech? I'm pretty sure we have come up with far better ideas than slavery and the holocaust but people still fly the confederate flag and display the Nazi swastika. Is that because we haven't come up with a better idea?
 
Junebug said:
The instinct to regulate speech with which we disagree is one of the most dangerous impulses to ordered liberty out there. If you disagree with an idea, come up with a better one. If you can't do that, then step aside and let someone else do it. If the speech you disagree with is truly bad, someone will.
Click to expand...

This from an advocate of "fighting words."
 
WakeandBake said:
Not a very good week for the GOP. I've been kinda out of it with work and family stuff, but getting caught up. sheesh, what a shitshow.

1) Planned Parenthood - really botched this hearing. They don't even understand the details of what they are arguing against. Not good. Why push this issue right now anyway? Shouldn't the focus be on winning Ohio, Penn, NC, FL, etc? Do they give a fuck about PP in purple states?

For a party with supposedly such good ideas, why can't they articulate them and deliver them? This is all just bullshit.
Click to expand...

The polling on defunding PP isn't even close: 61% oppose, 35% support. Who knows what the numbers are for shutting down the government over defunding government. 'Pubs still don't understand or believe statistics or data mining.
 
RChildress107 said:
This makes no sense. Is this some free market theory of speech? I'm pretty sure we have come up with far better ideas than slavery and the holocaust but people still fly the confederate flag and display the Nazi swastika. Is that because we haven't come up with a better idea?
Click to expand...

No, it's because they haven't been convinced. And you probably never will convince some people. As Dostoyevsky pointed out over 150 years ago in Notes from the Underground, to many people, probably most, will is more important than reason or even rational interest.
 
sailordeac said:
No, it's because they haven't been convinced. And you probably never will convince some people. As Dostoyevsky pointed out over 150 years ago in Notes from the Underground, to many people, probably most, will is more important than reason or even rational interest.
Click to expand...

2013-07-10_Keith_Hernandez_slams_Howie_Rose_s_book.gif
 
RChildress107 said:
I get that it's a pretty scary concept for rich white males to entertain the thought that maybe the rich white males who wrote the constitution over 200 years ago, and the mostly rich white male lawyers who have interpreted it since, didn't get it exactly right.
Click to expand...

I'm a moderately comfortable white male with very strong progressive leanings and I think that restricting speech, any speech (barring stuff like yelling "fire!" in a crowded theater, of course) no matter how abhorrent, would be a horrible precedent.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top