Why Liberals Hate Free Speech

[regent]

Chic's history is unlike what most people think of as regular history. Chic's history and labels can be moved around at will and applied as it fits her theme. Chic's history is imaginative, creative, and wrong, but it does appeal to some.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Chic's history is unlike what most people think of as regular history. Chic's history and labels can be moved around at will and applied as it fits her theme. Chic's history is imaginative, creative, and wrong, but it does appeal to some.

1. Any who tell the truth about Franklin Roosevelt, i.e., moi...can expect a visit from his boot-lickers.
Thanks for dropping by.

2. "Chic's history is imaginative, creative, and wrong,..."
The proof of item #1 above is that you couldn't demonstrate anything I've posted that is wrong.
And I always source, link and document. Pretty good, huh?

3. I mean, really....deep down, don't you wish you had the honesty and education evident in my posts.
...just between us.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Fuck the troops.

America is wrong Isis is right

Christianity is a fairytale

Let illegal Mexicans become us citizens

Carson is an uncle Tom n"'get

Poor people should get abortions.

Gays are good people.

Corporations are evil.

I love free speech.

Sounds like a Hilliary speech!

 

[Wyatt earp]

You must be thinking of Bill 'the rapist' Clinton.
It was a
Let's review...to illustrate your childish pattern....

1. You: "I didn't realize liberal socialist America had gulags, or starvation. In fact it was you who said there are virtually no poor people in America."

2. Some brilliant poster who regualrly puts you in your place...last seat in the dumb row:
"Recall the fate of Japanese-Americans under Roosevelt?

"Although FDR himself called them "concentration camps,"..."
Did the United States put its own citizens in concentration camps during WWII?



3. The court jester, you: "And those are where today?"



Your latest post has changed your status from merely a hint of stupidity to an announcement.

The internment camps were ruled constitutional:

"Korematsu was not excluded from the Military Area because of hostility to him or his race. He was excluded because we are at war with the Japanese Empire, because the properly constituted military authorities feared an invasion of our West Coast and felt constrained to take proper security measures, because they decided that the military urgency of the situation demanded that all citizens of Japanese ancestry be segregated from the West Coast temporarily, and, finally, because Congress, reposing its confidence in this time of war in our military leaders — as inevitably it must — determined that they should have the power to do just this."

A very conservative ruling, wouldn't you say?

...submitting to the military's concern for security, and submitting to the will of the Congress?

Sounds EXACTLY like modern conservative reasoning.

Let's remind that neither Franklin Roosevelt nor his New Dealers had any respect for the United States Constitution.

His view on concentration camps for his own citizens was consistent with that of his BFF, Joseph Stalin.


" It is a fact that none of the New Dealers were constitutionalists. Roosevelt's economist, Rexford Tugwell said: Any people who must be governed according to the written codes of an instrument which defines the spheres of individual and group, state and federal actions must expect to suffer from the constant maladjustment of progress.A life' which changes and a constitution for governance which does not must always raise questions which are difficult for solution."
Manly, "The Twenty Year Revolution," p. 63


Oh....and one more fact: the very first Justice that Roosevelt decided belonged on the Supreme Court was KKK official, Hugo Black.
In 1937. This KKK Senator from Alabama wrote the majority decision on Korematsu v. US; in 1967, he said ‘They all look alike to a person not a Jap.” Engage: Conversations in Philosophy: "They all look alike to a person not a Jap"*: The Legacy of Korematsu at OSU




Who was a worse choice or America, Hugo Black, or Franklin Roosevelt?

Opinionated tripe.

It's funny to hear a Bush loving neocon like yourself rant against a president who listened to his generals and put security first in a time of war.

"...a president who listened to his generals...."

What???

Joseph Stalin was one of FDR's generals?


Hmmm.....could be.

You don't really know much about history do you?

We don't know much about liberal revisionists history and don't want too

Speaking of that, anyone read about that liberal common core math problem?

This idiot teacher marked this answer wrong....

It went like do 5x3 but add it instead, the child's answer

5+5+5= 15

The teacher said it was wrong, her correct answer was

3+3+3+3+3=15

Liberals are a fucking joke

Edit forgot the link


Common Core multiplication quiz - Business Insider

 

[NYcarbineer]

The internment camps were ruled constitutional:

"Korematsu was not excluded from the Military Area because of hostility to him or his race. He was excluded because we are at war with the Japanese Empire, because the properly constituted military authorities feared an invasion of our West Coast and felt constrained to take proper security measures, because they decided that the military urgency of the situation demanded that all citizens of Japanese ancestry be segregated from the West Coast temporarily, and, finally, because Congress, reposing its confidence in this time of war in our military leaders — as inevitably it must — determined that they should have the power to do just this."

A very conservative ruling, wouldn't you say?

...submitting to the military's concern for security, and submitting to the will of the Congress?

Sounds EXACTLY like modern conservative reasoning.

Let's remind that neither Franklin Roosevelt nor his New Dealers had any respect for the United States Constitution.

His view on concentration camps for his own citizens was consistent with that of his BFF, Joseph Stalin.


" It is a fact that none of the New Dealers were constitutionalists. Roosevelt's economist, Rexford Tugwell said: Any people who must be governed according to the written codes of an instrument which defines the spheres of individual and group, state and federal actions must expect to suffer from the constant maladjustment of progress.A life' which changes and a constitution for governance which does not must always raise questions which are difficult for solution."
Manly, "The Twenty Year Revolution," p. 63


Oh....and one more fact: the very first Justice that Roosevelt decided belonged on the Supreme Court was KKK official, Hugo Black.
In 1937. This KKK Senator from Alabama wrote the majority decision on Korematsu v. US; in 1967, he said ‘They all look alike to a person not a Jap.” Engage: Conversations in Philosophy: "They all look alike to a person not a Jap"*: The Legacy of Korematsu at OSU




Who was a worse choice or America, Hugo Black, or Franklin Roosevelt?

Opinionated tripe.

It's funny to hear a Bush loving neocon like yourself rant against a president who listened to his generals and put security first in a time of war.

"...a president who listened to his generals...."

What???

Joseph Stalin was one of FDR's generals?


Hmmm.....could be.

You don't really know much about history do you?

We don't know much about liberal revisionists history and don't want too

Speaking of that, anyone read about that liberal common core math problem?

This idiot teacher marked this answer wrong....

It went like do 5x3 but add it instead, the child's answer

5+5+5= 15

The teacher said it was wrong, her correct answer was

3+3+3+3+3=15

Liberals are a fucking joke

Edit forgot the link


Common Core multiplication quiz - Business Insider

Where did I revise history in this thread?

 

[sealybobo]

Fuck the troops.

America is wrong Isis is right

Christianity is a fairytale

Let illegal Mexicans become us citizens

Carson is an uncle Tom n"'get

Poor people should get abortions.

Gays are good people.

Corporations are evil.

I love free speech.

Sounds like a Hilliary speech!

Point is, we hate wrong speech. I guess you are free to spew ignorance but don't ask us to love it when you do. Just like you wouldn't like it if Arabs were spewing anti American speech, would you?

Muslims Are Taking Over England: Islamic Radicals Chant on BBC - "UK Go to Hell" (VIDEO) - Headline Politics

So we don't like guys like Ben Carson or Ted Cruz spewing their ignorance.

I would love to see anti western arabs test your theory on how cons love free speech.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

​

Syllabus:
"The power to tax and spend is a separate and distinct power; its exercise is not confined to the fields committed to Congress by the other enumerated grants of power, but it is limited by the requirement that it shall be exercised to provide for the general welfare of the United States." [Emphasis Added]
Opinion:
"Nevertheless the Government asserts that warrant is found in this clause for the adoption of the Agricultural Adjustment Act. The argument is that Congress may appropriate and authorize the spending of moneys for the "general welfare"; that the phrase should be liberally [p65] construed to cover anything conducive to national welfare; that decision as to what will promote such welfare rests with Congress alone, and the courts may not review its determination, and finally that the appropriation under attack was, in fact, for the general welfare of the United States." [Emphasis Added]

Your argument relies on what seems to be your definition of "general welfare." I would be interested in a further explanation...

It's not my opinion of the case I cited or the definition of "the general welfare" in Art.I, Sec 1, Cls 1. It was the opinion of SCOTUS in Jan 1936 as written by Justice Owen Roberts, which has now become the Law of the Land. I can't take credit for any wisdom which came before my birth or after that did not spring from my own mind. That would be dishonest.

You can read the opinion of Justice Roberts in US v. Butler here for his reasoning and logic:
United States v. Butler

Time for another lesson?
Sure.

1. Article I, section 8, clause 1: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;….
   1. Hamilton’s view was that this clause gave Congress the power to tax and spend for the general welfare, whatsoever they decide that might be.
   2. William Drayton, in 1828, came down on the side of Madison, Jefferson and others, pointing out that if Hamilton was correct, what point would there have been to enumerate Congresses’ other powers? If Congress wished to do anything it was not authorized to do, it could accomplish it via taxing and spending. He said, "If Congress can determine what constitutes the general welfare and can appropriate money for its advancement, where is the limitation to carrying into execution whatever can be effected by money?" 'Charity Not a Proper Function of the American Government' by Walter E. Williams
   3. According to James Madison, the clause authorized Congress to spend money,but only to carry out the powers and duties specifically enumerated in the subsequent clauses of ArticleI, Section 8,and else where in the Constitution, not to meet the seemingly infinite needs of the general welfare.Alexander Hamilton maintained that the clause granted Congress the power to spend without limitation for the general welfare of the nation. The winner of this debate was not declared for 150 years. General Welfare
   4. In 1937 the Constitution was shredded. Up until that year the Congress of the United States conducted its business within the boundaries of seventeen enumerated powers granted under Article I Section 8 of the United States Constitution; these powers defined clearly the areas within which Congress could enact legislation including the allocation of funds and levying of taxes. Anything not set down in the enumerated powers was considered outside the purview of the national government and hence, a matter for the states. There were occasional challenges to the concept but it was not until Franklin Roosevelt's new deal that it was attacked in deadly earnestness. The General Welfare Clause

Thus.....we are now saddled with $18.4 trillion dollars in national debt.

And you are nearly as great a mistake as Roosevelt was.

What lesson? The bulk is copy and paste OPINION and not LAW, Chica! Let's review and point to your logical errors.

Following your faulty outline form, I respond in the same manner so you may follow easily given your handicap:
1. Why post all of Article I, Section 1, Clause 1 of the Constitution. That's obviously redundant, but at least you didn't have to put any thought into the C&P, eh!

1. Hamilton's view was relevant for the OPINION of his time, and just happens to coincide with the SCOTUS decision in U S v. Butler much later that established it as LAW. Even two Federalists could disagree like Madison and Hamilton did! You should have read the portions of the decision I posted to understand that point! You foolishly did not!
2. Again, if you had read the portions of the decision in Butler I posted, you would know the LAW as established in Jan 1936 in Butler, and would not have quoted the OPINIONATED drivel from a person in 1828, over 100 years earlier!
3. The paragraph you C&P'ed and PLAGIARIZED says what? It's the lead in to how that OPINION was forever altered by what became the LAW with the decision in U S v. Butler! If you had read the very next two paragraphs you would have seen that and not again committed another error in logical truth!
4. This "point" you tried to make was totally irrelevant! The decision in Butler was published in Jan 1936 and FDR's fireside chat was in March 1937, 14 months later. The Constitutional definition of "the general welfare" was settled LAW in Butler 14 months before FDR's proposal to "stack" the Courts and had absolutely nothing to do with the decision in Butler, per se. It was FDR's spiteful and devious attempt to circumvent the Constitution to fulfill his New Deal Plan. Damn woman, read and understand some history!!!!
​

And what does the Total Debt have to do with the topic at hand...nothing directly other than tangentially interjected BS! Your imperfect logic highlights your perfidy!

More gratuitous ad hominem? SCHEEEEESH!

Get thyself edified, Chica! You have only proved you have no meaningful understanding of the LAWFUL interpretation of either the Constitutional term "general welfare" or the necessary and proper clause!

BTW, the above is an example of how to formulate a post using one's own thoughts without the crutch of multiple C&P's of the thoughts of others as the basis of an argument! You have obviously never had to defend a paper of any sort!

 

[Uncensored2008]

Point is, we hate wrong speech.

"Wrong speech" being anything which deviates from party dogma.

People are "free" to recite party mantras and slogans.

I guess you are free to spew ignorance but don't ask us to love it when you do. Just like you wouldn't like it if Arabs were spewing anti American speech, would you?

Muslims Are Taking Over England: Islamic Radicals Chant on BBC - "UK Go to Hell" (VIDEO) - Headline Politics

So we don't like guys like Ben Carson or Ted Cruz spewing their ignorance.

I would love to see anti western arabs test your theory on how cons love free speech.

Muslims engage in anti-American speech all the time, which is why you leftists love them.

Of course you would like to silence Ben Carson, he is a threat to the party anointed. democrats would like to simply appoint the ruler, without the uncertainty that elections introduce.

 

[RWNJ]

The unborn baby is not 'their body.'
It is a totally different, unique individual with it's own DNA, fingerprints, organs, etc.

That just happens to be unable to live on its own.

But it is still alive. A baby that has actually been born is also not able to live without it's mother. Does that mean we should kill it?

A baby can live without its mother. Plenty of women in history have died in childbirth and the child has lived.

I would love to credit you for enough intelligence to know that by "mother" I meant someone to take care of it. But you are making it difficult.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Liberals are the power in the political realm....and they illustrate what Lord Action meant about power absolutely corrupting those who control it.



1." ...do any of you actually remember a time when liberals truly supported and believed in freedom of speech.... genuine,bona fide agreement with the principle that liberty includes allowing those with whom you disagree to have access to the marketplace of ideas, and that this marketplace itself will decide which are the best ones. You know, Voltaire's "I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it," and all that?

I can't either. Probably nobody can who was not born during or before World War II,



2.... those on the Left do not believe in free speech. They simply do not accept the fundamental principle that people of all opinions ought to be able to express those opinions without being punished for it, or at least hindered to the greatest degree possible in their ability to express themselves.



3. [Thus the] editorial in Harvard's student newspaper The Crimson, in which Sandra Korn, a student columnist and "women's studies" major (who didn't see that one coming?) obligingly calls for academic totalitarianism,

"Yet the liberal obsession with 'academic freedom" seems a bit misplaced to me. .... No academic question is ever 'free' from political realities. If our university community opposes racism, sexism, and heterosexism, why should we put up with research that counters our goals simply in the name of "academic freedom"?



"Instead, I would like to propose a more rigorous standard: one of 'academic justice. When an academic community observes research promoting or justifying oppression, it should ensure that this research does not continue.



"The power to enforce academic justice comes from students, faculty, and workers organizing together to make our universities look as we want them to do. Two years ago, when former summer school instructor Subramanian Swamy published hateful commentary about Muslims in India, the Harvard community organized to ensure that he would not return to teach on campus. I consider that sort of organizing both appropriate and commendable. Perhaps it should even be applied more broadly...


There, in a nutshell, is the modern liberal attitude toward freedom of speech, and by extension freedom of thought. If research doesn't substantiate the cultural goals and priorities of today's Neo-Fascists, then we must ensure that it "does not continue." Why liberals hate freedom of speech



If speech refutes the Left's positions on any number of issues, then it has to be silenced. "Academic justice" means suppression of all those naughty things that people might say that contradict us.


As far as speech is concerned, the Left definitely prefers a command economy over the free market.

Homeschooled children become murderers. I know that to be true because I've seen several examples of that happening.

Do you agree?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Point is, we hate wrong speech.

"Wrong speech" being anything which deviates from party dogma.

People are "free" to recite party mantras and slogans.

I guess you are free to spew ignorance but don't ask us to love it when you do. Just like you wouldn't like it if Arabs were spewing anti American speech, would you?

Muslims Are Taking Over England: Islamic Radicals Chant on BBC - "UK Go to Hell" (VIDEO) - Headline Politics

So we don't like guys like Ben Carson or Ted Cruz spewing their ignorance.

I would love to see anti western arabs test your theory on how cons love free speech.

Muslims engage in anti-American speech all the time, which is why you leftists love them.

Of course you would like to silence Ben Carson, he is a threat to the party anointed. democrats would like to simply appoint the ruler, without the uncertainty that elections introduce.

We're not allowed to disagree with you people?

 

[Uncensored2008]

We're not allowed to disagree with you people?

The right has no speech codes, that is a unique feature of you communists.

Silly Bonobo says that Republicans and Commoners have the freedom to engage in "correct" speech.

 

[PoliticalChic]

We're not allowed to disagree with you people?

The right has no speech codes, that is a unique feature of you communists.

Silly Bonobo says that Republicans and Commoners have the freedom to engage in "correct" speech.

And nowhere more evident than in the Liberal monasteries known as university.



"On a winter’s night 20 years ago, a freshman at the University of Pennsylvania who was working on an English paper heard a ruckus outside his dorm. A group of sorority sisters was singing, stomping and yelling, and he couldn’t concentrate. So he shouted out the window at them: “Shut up, you water buffalo!”
He was subsequently accused of violating Penn’s policy against racial harassment.

...PC has spiraled out of control, starting on college campuses and graduating into the real world...

....Greg Lukianoff, president of the Philly-based Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (a.k.a. FIRE), in his new book, Unlearning Liberty: Campus Censorship and the End of American Debate. He posits that political correctness has hamstrung free speech, resulting in a society where citizens lack the “experience of uninhibited debate and casual provocation” that keeps minds open and dialogue flowing."
A History of Political Correctness: 20 Years After Penn's "Water Buffalo" Incident | Philadelphia magazine

 

[Mac1958]

The pushback from within the Left has begun.

These true, honest liberals have had the balls to stand up against the Regressive Left, and I sure hope the momentum continues:

• The political correctness cops are going to ruin the progressive cause
  
• Bill Maher Rails Against Crazy Political Correctness From Liberals Tells Media Matters to Shut The F ck Up Video RealClearPolitics
• Jerry Seinfeld says political correctness is hurting comedy - CBS News
• Don Lemon weighs in on PC culture Liberals are the most easily offended and the least tolerant - Salon.com
• Not a Very P.C. Thing to Say -- NYMag
• Liberal Turley against political correctness in News Forum
• Are Liberals Becoming Too Sensitive and Politically Correct
• Jim Webb says Democratic Party has lost its way - The Washington Post
• John Stuart Mill s Argument Against Political...
• Dem Blames Political Correctness for Fort Hood Workplace Violence Controversy - ABC News
• Is the New Political Correctness Already Dying -- NYMag
• I don t know what to do you guys Fredrik deBoer
• http://www.forwardprogressives.com/liberals-becoming-sensitive-politically-correct/
• http://www.vox.com/2015/6/3/8706323/college-professor-afraid
• http://www.socialmemorycomplex.net/leftlibertarian/2012/06/12/a-leftist-critique-of-political-correctness/
• My view: Political correctness should not inhibit free speech
  
• http://scienceblogs.com/webeasties/2013/05/21/science-racism-and-political-correctness/
• http://www.hawkeyelounge.com/threads/liberal-columnist-leonard-pitts-asks-if-weve-overdone-political-correctness.130665/
• #CancelColbert and the Return of the Anti-Liberal Left
• REED: When liberals become illiberal
• PC Police Out Of Control In Possibly The Most Absurd Story I've Ever Come Across
• “Political Correctness” | The Progressive Professor
• How Liberals Ruined College
• Rushdie warns of new dangers to free speech in West

 

[JFK_USA]

Can you name a liberal college that in its student handbook actually warns students against exercising their free speech rights?

Oh gee you can't?

Hmmm... I can name a famous CONSERVATIVE school that does. Bob Jones University.

"We desire to treat students fairly and to serve their needs effectively. We are open to constructive input regarding how we may improve our service to students, campus life and the testimony of BJU. Mass and social media are powerful tools to communicate truth. In the spirit of honor and wisdom,

however,

students should not use media to disparage BJU

but should instead pursue truth in love by following this grievance process."

So who hates free speech again? lol

http://www.bju.edu/life-faith/student-handbook.pdf

It took me all of 10 seconds and Google....Btw not sure why you are posting about a private college ???




berkley anti free spesch

berkley anti free spesch - Google Search

(For some reason it's not letting me post the link right)


On thursday, the UC Board of Regents will discuss a “Statement of Principles Against Intolerance” that condemns bigotry on campus while affirming the importance of free speech. Its overarching theme is that “intolerance has no place at the University of California.”

There is much to agree with in the statement, which was prepared by the staff of UC President Janet Napolitano with input from others, including some regents. But it also includes some loose language that could undermine the university's commitment to a free exchange of ideas and its obligation to respect the 1st Amendment.

So condemning bigotry and saying it's wrong means you hate free speech?

 

[RWNJ]

Can you name a liberal college that in its student handbook actually warns students against exercising their free speech rights?

Oh gee you can't?

Hmmm... I can name a famous CONSERVATIVE school that does. Bob Jones University.

"We desire to treat students fairly and to serve their needs effectively. We are open to constructive input regarding how we may improve our service to students, campus life and the testimony of BJU. Mass and social media are powerful tools to communicate truth. In the spirit of honor and wisdom,

however,

students should not use media to disparage BJU

but should instead pursue truth in love by following this grievance process."

So who hates free speech again? lol

http://www.bju.edu/life-faith/student-handbook.pdf

It took me all of 10 seconds and Google....Btw not sure why you are posting about a private college ???




berkley anti free spesch

berkley anti free spesch - Google Search

(For some reason it's not letting me post the link right)


On thursday, the UC Board of Regents will discuss a “Statement of Principles Against Intolerance” that condemns bigotry on campus while affirming the importance of free speech. Its overarching theme is that “intolerance has no place at the University of California.”

There is much to agree with in the statement, which was prepared by the staff of UC President Janet Napolitano with input from others, including some regents. But it also includes some loose language that could undermine the university's commitment to a free exchange of ideas and its obligation to respect the 1st Amendment.

So condemning bigotry and saying it's wrong means you hate free speech?

When you censor one type of free speech, it makes it that much easier to censor other types. I could give countless examples. But if you're OK with that, then you deserve whatever happens.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

Damn, but you are a gadfly!

What I know is you pulled the tail of a she-wolf.

I don't always agree with PC, but she has tenacity.

I would never confuse tenacity with indifference to honesty, good character or outright unwarranted chutzpah.

Oooo.....look who's sulking because of the spankings I've been forced to administer.

Look for more ahead.

Just found this reviewing the thread. Why don't you respond to the posts consigned to you and address the subject matter of those facts within that post rather than to my posts to others regarding other matters? That's rhetorical! That must be so you can avoid addressing the falsehoods, errors and stupidity of your "arguments" of C&P's I've laid open to the bone.Taking a victory lap when you weren't even on the right track smacks of pitiful hubris, Chica! Very damn stupid and sophomoric, too!

 

[sealybobo]

We're not allowed to disagree with you people?

The right has no speech codes, that is a unique feature of you communists.

Silly Bonobo says that Republicans and Commoners have the freedom to engage in "correct" speech.

Make fun of retards gays and black people all you want. I think they are gay and retarded too for not voting. Referring to black people.

 

[Timmy]

Name a venue that has more free speech than a university ?

Im calling u bitches out!!! NAme a place !!!

 

[sealybobo]

Name a venue that has more free speech than a university ?

Im calling u bitches out!!! NAme a place !!!

Notice all this conversation and I haven't even heard one example of speech we hate. Did anyone think to ask?