Announcement

Collapse

Forum Rules - You must read(Updated!)

DISCLAIMER

You agree to NOT use this site or its affiliated sites, services you may have access to as a result of being a member here (subscriber or otherwise), to post items (images, textual material, etc.) that are pornographic in nature, illegal in the United States and/or the country you reside in, support or encourage illegal activities (e.g., terrorism), advertise for your own personal profit, or send unsolicited messages (i.e. SPAM) to members or non-members.

AND

You agree that if any clause or component of this document is found to not be legally binding in a court of law of proper jurisdiction then the remainder of this document shall remain fully binding and in full force.

AND

You agree to NOT hold Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. (makers of the forum software), uspoliticsonline.com, sites affiliated with uspoliticsonline.com, its administrators, its moderators, others associated with its operation, and its owners liable for any and all of the following (in whole or in part):
Personal insults/attacks by other members.
The content posted by other members, whether directed at you personally or a label/classification you associate with. This includes remarks you consider to be libelous or slanderous in any way.
Any financial or time loss due to your participation here or as a result of something you read at this site, including posts/PMs by other members and feature(s)/software available at the domain uspoliticsonline.com.
The dissemination of any personal information about you as a result of either your negligence (e.g. staying logged into a computer that others have access to) or willingness to post such information on a public and or private forum, private message or chat box. This includes using your real name or other details that could allow other members and/or the general public to determine your true identity. You are prohibited from using your real name on these forums, either as your username or in posts / PMs you write.

FORUM RULES, IN ADDITION TO THE DISCLAIMER

1. These rules apply to all sections of USPOL, including public and private forums, blogs, and visitor messages.

2. You cannot attack and/or personally insult someone. You cannot bait other forum members; this includes referring to posters by derogatory terms. Please, remain courteous and respectful to all forum members at all times. You agree to take responsibility for reporting such posts when you come across them. Please, use the ignore feature if need be. Any member who intentionally and continually posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response, or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion, may be regarded as a troll by staff, and have their account suspended or banned.

3. You cannot harass (sexually or otherwise) other members. This includes malicious, slanderous, or defamatory comments. If you are not sure if something you write is inappropriate or not then don't say it. Err on the side of caution.

4. Copying and Pasting Articles, and Starting New Threads. You cannot simply cut and paste in posts or when starting threads. You MUST provide the identifying information (source, author, date, and URL). You must also offer some original thoughts along with the cut and paste. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts from the article. Excerpts really shouldnt be more then a paragraph or two. Furthermore, if you use images or other copyrighted material in your posts or signature you must have permission of the copyright holder unless you know for a fact that the image is in the public domain. In addition:
a. It must include the identifying information; e.g., where available, the author, the publication, the date, the URL.
b. The member must offer some context, including: How did you hear of this article? What is your opinion? Why is it important to you? Why should it be important to forum readers? The more context you provide, the more you assist others in gauging the excerpted information's significance.
c. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts, not the whole thing or even the majority of the whole thing to encourage people to read the entire article.

A violation of any of the above will result in the deletion or closing of the post or thread and could earn you a warning or suspension. If you have any questions concering any of the above please PM a moderator and we will be happy to clarify.

5. You cannot post the same thing in multiple forums. You must not open similar threads about the same or a similar topic. You cannot spam the board or send unsolicited messages to members via PM, email or any other means.

6. Do not post off-topic. You cannot derail a thread with off topic posts.

7. You cannot shout in posts. This includes posting in all CAPS, bold, lIkE tHiS, and extra large font. Posts should also be one color, although you may use an additional color for highlighting ideas you wish to address.

8. You may not alter quotes in a way that misrepresents what was originally said.

9. Multiple accounts are not allowed. If you are found to have more than one account all accounts will be permanently terminated.

10. You cannot have a user name, avatar, signature, or post images that are deliberately offensive. That includes the display of overly explicit or graphic images that may not be suitable for minors.

11. Signatures can not have more than three lines of text, with a font size no larger than "4", and no more than two font colors. Images in signatures cannot be any larger than 800 pixels wide x 200 pixels tall. Animated images are not allowed.

12. You are prohibited from taking any action to disturb the use of the services by others, distribute material that contains viruses, spyware or any other malicious code or harmful programs. This includes interfering with the working of the network, attempts to gain unauthorized access to a service or other computer systems that are part of the site or any other site, by use of the available services.

13. Discussion of moderation actions in public and/or private forums is not permitted. Moderation actions include warnings, suspensions and the editing or deletion of posts. If a member has a concern about a moderation action, he or she is invited to address it with the board staff via Private Message. This rule exists to protect the privacy of all posters with regards to disciplinary action. The moderator team will never publicly discuss the warnings/suspensions of any posters, and we ask that you return the favor, whether about yourself or another poster. Posting about moderation actions in the public forums constitutes a violation. You are free to discuss a moderation action via Private Message with the moderator involved, but you may not harass or abuse the moderators (as already specified in the forum rules). In practical terms, this means that once a moderator tells you his or her decision is final, no further PMs about that moderation action are permitted. If you have a concern about a moderation action, you are free to appeal to a Forum Administrator via Private Message. You may only discuss moderator activities or discussion of moderation with staff member if you chose to private message and are not under any circumstances allowed to use the PM function to forward or promote moderator discussion in regards to specific forum action, amongst other regular members. Administrators do reserve the right to read said PMs and may do so ; if that results in discovery of messaging between posters of such moderator discussion then it will lead to the same violation being received for discussing said moderator actions on the forum. If you receive a message to the effect of having been given moderator information, please report it to a member of staff. Engaging back in that discussion with the original violator will earn you just as stiff a sanction.

14. Do not ignore moderators or administrators. Do not repost something a moderator or administrator has deleted. You cannot have moderators or administrators on your ignore list.

15. Only post in English. Short passages in foreign languages may be acceptable if its use seems helpful for the ongoing discussion and when there is no indication of a potential violation of the forum rules. Always provide a translation into English in such cases. In case of doubt, the incident will be regarded as a violation, no matter of the actual meaning of the foreign language text.

16. The use of words/comments etc. written by other posters, without approval of the poster in your personal signature is not allowed nor are references, by name, to other posters allowed.

17. Please pay attention to announcements by Forum staff that will be found in the "Welcome! / News & Announcements" forum from time to time.

18. Use of "liar", "lies", "lying", etc. Accusing someone of being a "liar" or similar accusations towards other posters will generally be regarded as implying an insult and therewith as a violation of the forum rules. "I question the validity of your statement because...", "That's not the truth" or "you are wrong about that" are sufficient for any decent discussion if you want to disagree with somebody's assertions.

19. Thread opening restriction for new members. In order to control SPAM, new members must have moderator approval to start their own threads.

20. Thread titles must relate to the discussion within. Do not make misleading titles, or titles such as "Guess what..." or "You'll never believe this...". Members need to be able to identify the general gist of the thread via the title. Profanity in thread titles is not permitted.

21. Forum members are instructed to use forum tools and abilities for their intended purposes and no other. If members identify a forum glitch or weakness of any kind that allows you to see or do something you know you shouldn't, please report it. Being aware of any unintended access to the Forum and failing to take appropriate steps to notify staff of said access issues, will create a presumption of seeking to take advantage of the issue, will result in either account suspension, or banishment.

22. Any link to a site that contains graphic content, must contain a warning describing what a person might reasonably expect to view if they click on said link. No graphic pictures are to be posted on the Forum.

23. Threats or advocations of violence toward a public figure, or member of the Forum, will not be tolerated. Conversation about revolution or the like is not prohibited by this rule; directly calling for violence is, eg It's time to kill every <redacted> that voted for the bill, is not permitted.

24. Accounts with no posts will be deleted after 30 days. Inactive accounts with low post histories may be deleted after one year.

25. Private forums are something offered to members that decide to contribute directly to this site via donations. These donations help immensely in keeping this site up and running. Private forums are designed to allow the contributing member discuss whatever he/she wants to and to have the power to direct that discussion in whatever way he/she chose. They were not designed nor are they intended for simply talking trash about members that don't have access to the forum. While the targeted members cannot see the forum or the comments, it creates a negative atmosphere that really isn't necessary. If you want to totally rip apart ideas, ideologies, political parties, etc. that is fine. We simply ask that you don't use the private forums as a means to attack other members that aren't privy to such comments. It is difficult enough to have a political discussion forum because the discussion of politics is inherently heated as people are so passionate about their beliefs...the ones that take the time to come to such a site in the first place at least. The idea of private forums is so people of similar political persuasions can discuss whatever they want without fear of being attacked. Nonetheless, we hope that a certain level of maturity would foster itself within such an arena and not simply lend itself to a bashing forum.

Private Forums are governed by all of the above Forum rules. In addition:
  • Private forums that essentially become abandoned homes will be subject to deletion, donation or reorganization. Just like elsewhere in life, clubs sometimes lose their vitality and purpose for a myriad of reasons. If it becomes clear that a private forum has clearly lost its vitality and nobody is going to really use it anymore, owners are advised to consider whether to reuse the forum for something new and productive rather than let them linger or notify the Administration that the forum should be rearranged for other purposes, closed, merged with other compatible private forums, donated to others for new purposes, etc. Do not be concerned that your forum must be a membership and post count race with others to avoid falling under this policy; the question is whether your forum has actual vitality instead of being 'brain dead.'
  • Additionally, private forums may only be owned by subscribed members in the Platinum or Diamond categories.
  • Should the owner of a private forum be banned, quit USPOL or otherwise abandon the forum the PF will be transferred to another owner or closed.
  • Propriety of private forums. Administration staff will determine the desirability of a proposed private forum and enact any conditions upon it to ensure its purpose is productive.
  • Any and all instances of sharing accounts by allowing someone else to log in under their own account so they can see into private forums for which they are otherwise not permitted to access, will be deemed violation of the double account rule and all caught doing so will be permanently banned.
  • Relaying private forum posts and information to other posters who are not members of the particular private forum for any negative or destructive purpose (eg mean-spirited gossip, fueling interpersonal disputes, etc), is not permitted, and will constitute a violation of the Forum rules.
  • For purposes of monitoring USPOL Terms of Service Administrative staff (not Moderators) will have access to Private Forums.
  • All Private Forums must have at least one active Administrator as a member for purposes of handling issues which cannot be addressed through moderation permissions.
  • Discussion of moderation activities is prohibited on the open site and is likewise prohibited in Private Forums.

26. The administrators and moderators reserve the right to edit and/or delete a post,and/or close a thread, and/or delete a thread at any time if of the opinion that the post is too obscene, inappropriate, or the discussion has run its course.

27. 'Back seat moderating' is not allowed. If you take issue with another poster's contribution to the forum, you're welcome to report any posts you think are out of line, but you should not bring it up publicly within the forum.

28. Images in posts (whether embedded or hot linked) must be reasonable in size. 800x800 should be considered a good rule of thumb. Excessively large images make it difficult for users on mobile devices to load pages. If necessary please simply link to very large images using the URL tags. In addition, the following images are not permitted (including, but not limited to pages with images or videos containing):
  • Strategically covered nudity
  • Sheer or see-through clothing
  • Lewd or provocative poses
  • Close-ups of breasts, buttocks, or crotches

29. Any solicitation or communication involving sports betting / gambling / online casinos / bookies and or internet based card or slot machine systems or sites will lead to all said content being physically removed from the site and server, and will lead to any and or all parties involved being permanently removed and banned from the site to the farthest extent possible. This includes any links to any form of bookmaker, casino, any type of game or match or event where money transfers on the outcome or link of any sort to wire act violations and or anything in violation of either the Internet Gambling Regulation, Consumer Protection, and Enforcement Act, Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006, or the Federal wire Act. This applies not only to the open forum but all and or any chat rooms, articles, private messages and or private forums. All content that violates this rule will be deleted, without notice.

CONSEQUENCES

Failure to comply with any of the forum rules may result in your posts being edited or deleted and/or your account being temporarily or permanently banned from the forums. U.S. Politics Online uses a warning system that generates an automated Private Message to members when they are in violation of Forum rules. The decision to issue a warning is left to the discretion of the moderator or administrator handling the violation. If a member does not agree with an action taken by a moderator, they can appeal to an administrator after seeking clarification from the moderator who issued the warning/infraction and appealing to them in the first instance. Members MAY NOT harass a moderator or administrator by sending excessive PMs when they are discussing an appeal.

Violations are assigned a point value. Points are valid for 30 days. When a members earns 10 points, their account will be automatically suspended: five (5) days for a first suspension; ten (10) days for a second suspension; and twenty (20) days for a third suspension. If a member incurs an additional 10 points after having served three periods of suspension, then they will be permanently banned from the Forum.

Point values are as follows:
Zero (0) points Warning
Two (2) points - Minor infraction / Non post infraction (minor) / Off topic posts / spamming
Four (4) points - Academic dishonesty / Baiting / Discussing moderator or administrator actions / Implying an insult / Minor insults / Moderate infraction / Non-post infraction (moderate) / Thread dumping
Six (6) points - Direct insult at another member / major infraction / Non-post infraction (major)
Ten (10) points - Act of criminality, or advocating thereof

The administrators and moderators also bear the right to issue warnings, temporarily suspend or ban posters for continued trolling or other serious misconduct (eg. professional spamming) even if the poster has not yet reached the maximum warning points or suspensions level. Other options if the above consequences do not seem adequate include placing the member in a moderation queue, which means all posts will have to be approved before they are posted to the board.

PRIVACY POLICY

All information obtained by the end user via the registration process is for internal purposes only and will not be sold to or shared with any third parties. However, if the end user participates in illegal activities and a court of proper jurisdiction orders U.S. Politics Online to release certain information about said user then we will act according to the law. Furthermore, no information will be released on threat of a lawsuit, attempted or actual intimidation, or due to any other reason except as notated in the first sentence of this paragraph. Nonetheless, keep in mind that the information we do have is very limited and generally only consists of the IP address a member uses.

SUBSCRIPTIONS

U.S. Politics Online offers several subscription plans to help cover the operational costs of the site. As a thank you for your donation, you will receive special added benefits meant to enhance your U.S. Politics Online experience. Plans vary in price, starting at only $0.05/day, and benefits vary with the price. Benefits include ability to go straight to new posts, to search the forum, larger avatar, private forums, invisible mode, photo gallery, email, web hosting, and no advertisement banners. Please, click here for more details.
See more
See less

Free speech under attack by Trump

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by redrover View Post
    How dare black NFL players think they have the same rights as real Americans the white ones. Trump calls them sons of bitches. That's our boy. http://www.thedailybeast.com/trumps-...ue-to-its-feet
    That's a pretty stupid statement...if I took time while at work, while representing my employer (which you are when you are on the field in the team UNIFORM), and decided to indulge myself by making overt political demonstrations, I could be fired summarily. NO American, black, white, purple, etc... has a "right" to engage in "free speech" while at work. Your employer is free to fire you. And this does not even hold true only to the workplace. For example, as a person in the United States, you can go on television and declare that anyone (the President, your local Congress person, your boss) is a complete idiot. The "right" you have is that the government may not restrain you from such actions, and broadly speaking (subject to some very limited constraints) may not punish you for it. Your EMPLOYER on the other hand, may fire you for doing that same thing (even if you were not on the clock).

    Now, I understand that most liberals have never read the Constitution...or have been so busy dismissing it (and using it for toilet paper) for so many years simply fail to grasp it, but the First Amendment's Freedom of Speech is ONLY a constraint on GOVERNMENT, it is NOT a free pass to do or say anything you like and be free of any consequence or judgement by private actors.

    BTW, only a liberal could lack a sense of irony over criticizing someone for engaging in free speech (Trump) for criticizing the speech of someone else just because they are more sympathetic to the other party.

    ?


    • Originally posted by redrover View Post

      Where does free speech and obnoxious sales pitch begin. Haven't we all been exposed to the random sidewalk sermon complete with dire warnings of the hell fire that awaits think the ban wasn't anti Christian per se but an attempt to shield students from aggressive pitchmen..
      The problem is that through most of history "aggressive" (insofar as reasonable restrictions on "speech" is concerned) meant PHYSICALLY (blocking your freedom of motion, restraining you, being too loud in public places...particularly at certain times), it was not defined by the WORDS themselves being perceived by the listeners (or hearers) as "aggressive"..

      Time for the snowflakes to understand something...being offended IS NOT "assault", hearing something which makes you angry is not "assault", and you have NO right to restrict the free speech based on the CONTENT of the speech.

      Now, you want examples of "aggressive" "speech" that not only MAY be restricted, but in my view should be deemed a felony...blocking roads and shutting down traffic without a permit...doing anything which restrains people from going about their business (standing stationary with clear means of egress for the listener is fine...moving to repeatedly impede their motion is not). And I am willing to bet that en masse you find liberals engaging in those tactics far more than conservatives over the last decade.

      ?


      • Originally posted by Marcus1124 View Post

        The problem is that through most of history "aggressive" (insofar as reasonable restrictions on "speech" is concerned) meant PHYSICALLY (blocking your freedom of motion, restraining you, being too loud in public places...particularly at certain times), it was not defined by the WORDS themselves being perceived by the listeners (or hearers) as "aggressive"..

        Time for the snowflakes to understand something...being offended IS NOT "assault", hearing something which makes you angry is not "assault", and you have NO right to restrict the free speech based on the CONTENT of the speech.

        Now, you want examples of "aggressive" "speech" that not only MAY be restricted, but in my view should be deemed a felony...blocking roads and shutting down traffic without a permit...doing anything which restrains people from going about their business (standing stationary with clear means of egress for the listener is fine...moving to repeatedly impede their motion is not). And I am willing to bet that en masse you find liberals engaging in those tactics far more than conservatives over the last decade.
        For the sake of discussion: I've often contemplated where to draw the line on speech that is enticing a riot. I believe that can be prosecuted, but how is it determined? It's easy to go back and use examples of riots that have been enticed, but if intending to go forward, where do we draw the line? Especially since I believe it's often based on the character of the listeners. We use the standard response that makes good sense in all situations, "can't falsely yell fire in a crowded movie theater, but what else? Thinking maybe we can't go forward, but only address it after a riot has taken place.

        ?


        • Originally posted by msc View Post

          For the sake of discussion: I've often contemplated where to draw the line on speech that is enticing a riot. I believe that can be prosecuted, but how is it determined? It's easy to go back and use examples of riots that have been enticed, but if intending to go forward, where do we draw the line? Especially since I believe it's often based on the character of the listeners. We use the standard response that makes good sense in all situations, "can't falsely yell fire in a crowded movie theater, but what else? Thinking maybe we can't go forward, but only address it after a riot has taken place.
          Is there a distinction in your view between incitement as opposed to so-called "fighting" words. Where the words are deemed to be intended to gin up anger among the speakers supporters, hoping it will result in violent action on there part, versus a violent reaction by opponents of the speaker who dislike what is being said? For me, I would only ever entertain the notion of criminal penalties for the former (incitement), but not for the later as it would amount to an utterly un-American, anti-First Amendment heckler's veto of speech.

          ?


          • Originally posted by Marcus1124 View Post
            Is there a distinction in your view between incitement as opposed to so-called "fighting" words. Where the words are deemed to be intended to gin up anger among the speakers supporters, hoping it will result in violent action on there part, versus a violent reaction by opponents of the speaker who dislike what is being said? For me, I would only ever entertain the notion of criminal penalties for the former (incitement), but not for the later as it would amount to an utterly un-American, anti-First Amendment heckler's veto of speech.
            Very much like what we've been observing happen on college campuses of all places.

            Free speech under attack by Trump ??????????????????????


            What about those who rant, rage, riot and disrupt speakers on college campuses where ideas are supposedly to be sought, debated rather than chased off like thieves !?!?

            "Surprisingly, this is one area where political partisanship largely disappears. Liberals, conservatives, libertarians, and traditionalists have united around the banner of free speech."

            ... yet, free speech isn't wanted by ignoramuses

            Are we surprised ?

            We shouldn't be. We created this environment. We created these students !!!

            ------------------------------

            Continued Shutdowns Show Free Speech Doesn't Impress Students

            Instead of giving students abstract lessons in the First Amendment, we should pass along knowledge of conditions that made free speech so attractive. Dont treat 19-year-old minds as something to challenge and query and dispute, either. They dont like that. Instead, teach them about the trial of Socrates, the St. Bartholomews Day Massacre, the Puritans closing down the theaters, the erasure of enemies of the state from photographs and newspapers in Stalins Soviet Union . . .

            ..few people understand how fragile the ideal of free speech really is. It is more natural to us to expel a wrong opinionator, not to hear him out. We didnt evolve in a habitat of the marketplace of ideas. We are inclined to self- and group-protection, not exposure to others. Freedom and openness could very easily collapse, as weve seen at Berkeley, Middlebury, Pomona . . .

            Free speech has its genesis in Athens and the Wars of Religion, in scientific method and the Enlightenment and John Stuart Mill. It was those times of power politics and rampant violence that made free speech a solution and produced great apostles of liberty. Ask Millennials about those backgrounds and youll get a blank stare.

            But ask them if someone should be able to make offensive remarks on campus and you get an immediate Nope. A Brookings Institution study this year found that half (51 percent) of all college students believe that it is acceptable for a student group opposed to a speaker to disrupt the speech by loudly and repeatedly shouting so that the audience cannot hear the speaker. The question only singled out an opposed figure, but I imagine the nay-sayers had in mind someone with the wrong ideas about one group identity or another. Indeed, this may be the only bit of knowledge that all American youths absorb in their teens: mockery and criticism of any group or individual is bad, really bad. And now theyre told that they have to countenance it?!

            The evidence shows that the challenge-their-beliefs approach doesnt make sense. Teachers need to teach them something before they seek to contest it. This is more than just an ignorance problem. It explains why the free speech argument doesnt impress the students. With meager knowledge of history, politics, art, literature, religion, and science, how are youths supposed to appreciate the value of free speech when it comes to disagreeable speakers?

            These kids need to understand the First Amendment! they say. Its the only way to maintain the mission of higher education, which is to expose youths to difficult and contrary ideas, to question their opinions. Michael Bloomberg and Charles Koch, who otherwise disagree on many political matters, came together and put it nicely in a May 2016, op-ed in The Wall Street Journal: The purpose of a college education isnt to reaffirm students beliefs, it is to challenge, expand and refine them.

            But nothing that weve seen in the last year indicates that the message means anything to the young. This fundamental freedom that grown-ups across the ideological spectrum treasure hasn't made its way into the minds of the Millennials. It isnt hard to understand why.

            First of all, to speak of student beliefs as if they were informed and coherent enough to be challenge-able is to assume a formation that theyve never undergone. You cant question outlooks and opinions that are inchoate and inarticulate.



            https://www.newsmax.com/markbauerlei.../30/id/829082/

            ?


            • Originally posted by Captain Trips View Post

              Very much like what we've been observing happen on college campuses of all places.

              Free speech under attack by Trump ??????????????????????


              What about those who rant, rage, riot and disrupt speakers on college campuses where ideas are supposedly to be sought, debated rather than chased off like thieves !?!?

              "Surprisingly, this is one area where political partisanship largely disappears. Liberals, conservatives, libertarians, and traditionalists have united around the banner of free speech."

              ... yet, free speech isn't wanted by ignoramuses

              Are we surprised ?

              We shouldn't be. We created this environment. We created these students !!!

              ------------------------------

              Continued Shutdowns Show Free Speech Doesn't Impress Students

              [I]Instead of giving students abstract lessons in the First Amendment, we should pass along knowledge of conditions that made free speech so attractive. Dont treat 19-year-old minds as something to challenge and query and dispute, either. They dont like that. Instead, teach them about the trial of Socrates, the St. Bartholomews Day Massacre, the Puritans closing down the theaters, the erasure of enemies of the state from photographs and newspapers in Stalins Soviet Union . . .

              ... https://www.newsmax.com/markbauerlei.../30/id/829082/
              The NY Times reported positively on an organization that mostly agrees with this position (maybe with an exception to the claim that Trump doesn't attempt to censor free speech). Some university students -at least at the land grant (gummint) institutions- should grow up and learn debate technique. Leave one's hurt feelings at the door and dish out the correction with cold, hard facts. Link:
              Mr. Silverglate, who made his reputation defending radicals and protesters since the Vietnam War, objects: Communists, labor organizers, war protesters they are the people responsible for the majority of great First Amendment law. We dont care what you say. If you are penalized for it, were there.
              https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/07/e...ee-speech.html

              Nowadays the man is mostly defending the other end of the political spectrum, but that's how lawsuits on free speech violations work: Some entity violates the right to free speech based on their own bias, and they get push-back from lawyers who understand the right. The dominant bias (ignorance) a few decades ago was right-wing; now the bias pendulum has swung left.

              ?


              • Originally posted by radcentr View Post
                The NY Times reported positively on an organization that mostly agrees with this position (maybe with an exception to the claim that Trump doesn't attempt to censor free speech). Some university students -at least at the land grant (gummint) institutions- should grow up and learn debate technique. Leave one's hurt feelings at the door and dish out the correction with cold, hard facts. Link:

                https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/07/e...ee-speech.html

                Nowadays the man is mostly defending the other end of the political spectrum, but that's how lawsuits on free speech violations work: Some entity violates the right to free speech based on their own bias, and they get push-back from lawyers who understand the right. The dominant bias (ignorance) a few decades ago was right-wing; now the bias pendulum has swung left.
                Yes, now the dominant bias (ignorance) is left-wing.

                And we're currently seeing that pendulum swing toward the center and ... how far back to the right it goes, we'll see...

                ?


                • Originally posted by Captain Trips View Post

                  Yes, now the dominant bias (ignorance) is left-wing.

                  And we're currently seeing that pendulum swing toward the center and ... how far back to the right it goes, we'll see...
                  Rig wing used to mesn conservative small government traditional values. Now it means Trump Steve Bannon and Breitbart.in other words lunacy which is not really a political ideology.

                  ?


                  • Originally posted by redrover View Post

                    Rig wing used to mesn conservative small government traditional values. Now it means Trump Steve Bannon and Breitbart.in other words lunacy which is not really a political ideology.
                    Just how have Trump and Bannon violated the goal of smaller government and traditional values? You are upset because that is what they are trying to achieve and you don't like the traditional values of America. You would rather have free abortions, gay marriage, and illegal immigrants.

                    ?


                    • Originally posted by redrover View Post

                      Rig wing used to mesn conservative small government traditional values. Now it means Trump Steve Bannon and Breitbart.in other words lunacy which is not really a political ideology.
                      Liberalism used to mean small government, individual rights, and free market capitalism. In other words Liberty as the name implies. Now it stands for big government, restrictions on individual rights like free speech, and socialism. And of course, moral decadence - anything the LGBTQXYZ bunch wants shove it down our children's throats.

                      ?


                      • Originally posted by redrover View Post
                        Rig wing used to mesn conservative small government traditional values. Now it means Trump Steve Bannon and Breitbart.in other words lunacy which is not really a political ideology.
                        Odd how you see "lunacy" only in a certain direction.

                        Maybe you need your eyes checked. ... maybe you could benefit from a "check-up from the neck up".. who knows ?

                        But it's obvious that you favor some corruption, then scream when you see things that aren't in your flavor of corruption.... aren't even corrupt !!

                        ?


                        • Originally posted by OldmanDan View Post

                          Just how have Trump and Bannon violated the goal of smaller government and traditional values? You are upset because that is what they are trying to achieve and you don't like the traditional values of America. You would rather have free abortions, gay marriage, and illegal immigrants.
                          Look at the recent tax code delusion -er, some call it revision. It doesn't support main street business over Wall Street corporations. The GOP gave up their claim to smaller gov't. and traditional values way back in the 1920's. Their version of smaller gov't. and traditional values is to ensure gov't. screws up, then privatize (sell off) parts of it to their supporters with the deepest pockets. The traditional value of betraying one's elected position to realize personal gain is a value we need to lose.

                          ?


                          • Originally posted by radcentr View Post
                            Look at the recent tax code delusion -er, some call it revision. It doesn't support main street business over Wall Street corporations. The GOP gave up their claim to smaller gov't. and traditional values way back in the 1920's. Their version of smaller gov't. and traditional values is to ensure gov't. screws up, then privatize (sell off) parts of it to their supporters with the deepest pockets. The traditional value of betraying one's elected position to realize personal gain is a value we need to lose.
                            Yet like the Trump populists they will keep voting republican because they are too stupid to know who is on their side and who isn't.

                            ?


                            • Originally posted by redrover View Post

                              Yet like the Trump populists they will keep voting republican because they are too stupid to know who is on their side and who isn't.
                              Yeah, all of those establishment Democrats who are on my side. The ones taking money from Wall Street to get elected. Those funded by the billionaire Soros. Those guys who want as many illegal immigrants in the country as they can get to drive down wages and take the jobs of Americans. Those guys who rammed government run health care down our throats so they would have more power over the populace and who presided over 8 years of stagnant economy and who caused health care costs to go up exponentially. Those guys really care about you and your kids.

                              At least half of the people in the country have come to their senses.

                              ?


                              • Originally posted by OldmanDan View Post

                                Yeah, all of those establishment Democrats who are on my side. The ones taking money from Wall Street to get elected. Those funded by the billionaire Soros. Those guys who want as many illegal immigrants in the country as they can get to drive down wages and take the jobs of Americans. Those guys who rammed government run health care down our throats so they would have more power over the populace and who presided over 8 years of stagnant economy and who caused health care costs to go up exponentially. Those guys really care about you and your kids.

                                At least half of the people in the country have come to their senses.
                                How 'bout 2 halves of the country? Your list of "bad deeds" describes most of the people in Congress, with the exception of ACA, which was a failed attempt to slow down medical cost inflation before the ACA fiasco.

                                ?

                                Working...
                                X