Would you be happy if your opponents were driven offline?

[Mikeoxenormous]

The more you look it up, the better it gets. The least corrupt countries use it, the countries with the most sensible politicians get those politicians because of it. It least to POSITIVE voting, people campaigning for what they believe in, not what they think the people want to hear.

Yeah, so POSITIVE that 110% of the votes go towards one candidate.

 

[Man of Ethics]

Are you fucking serious?

Stalin was killing millions back then. Starving whole regions

WhT a stupid insane statement

1) Starvation was common in pre-Industrial and early Industrial societies. Very sad fact of life.

2) The fact that Joseph Stalin's Penal System killed about 3.5 million people is his great sin. Joseph Stalin's role in defeating Nazis is his great virtue.

3) Communists like Modern Progressives did not tolerate any disagreement.

 

[Lesh]

1) Starvation was common in pre-Industrial and early Industrial societies. Very sad fact of life.

2) The fact that Joseph Stalin's Penal System killed about 3.5 million people is his great sin. Joseph Stalin's role in defeating Nazis is his great virtue.

3) Communists like Modern Progressives did not tolerate any disagreement.

1. Stalin used starvation intentionally

2. Neither intentional famine nor millions killed on the gulags relate in any way to the US of today. Insane comments

3. You sound like a communist apologist

 

[Man of Ethics]

1. Stalin used starvation intentionally

2. Neither intentional famine nor millions killed on the gulags relate in any way to the US of today. Insane comments

3. You sound like a communist apologist

As I remember USSR, people had more Freedom then they do on any Liberal campus in Modern USA.

 

[frigidweirdo]

All for it. It should be employed for the House. It would give the two party system fits, and give other parties power. Power to fight special interests which seem to have the two parties captive.

It should definitely be applied to the House. Though I would go further. The Presidency should be changed, either to a parliamentary system where the leader of the legislature is the executive, seeing how the lines have massively blurred between legislature and executive in the last 100 years.
I've also been wondering whether people should vote for different bodies within the executive. Perhaps people could vote for different parts, so different aspects of the presidency can be more open to change.
Education, foreign affairs, welfare etc etc, being people running on platforms for each of those with such a person being responsible for proposing legislation, and then the legislature debating it.

 

[frigidweirdo]

As I remember USSR, people had more Freedom then they do on any Liberal campus in Modern USA.

"As I remember..." probably sums it all up really. You "remember" whatever is convenient for your fantasy argument.

 

[Man of Ethics]

"As I remember..." probably sums it all up really. You "remember" whatever is convenient for your fantasy argument.

I also remember my life up to age 13 when I left USSR.

 

[lennypartiv]

Driven off line? Absolutely not. I think it's a huge victory when the people on other side make one stupid post after another.

 

[frigidweirdo]

I also remember my life up to age 13 when I left USSR.

Yeah, great. I didn't have much of a clue about anything at the age of 13.
And when was the last time you were on a liberal campus? Just so we have that perspective.

 

[Man of Ethics]

Yeah, great. I didn't have much of a clue about anything at the age of 13.
And when was the last time you were on a liberal campus? Just so we have that perspective.

2002. I read about them a lot recently.

 

[frigidweirdo]

2002. I read about them a lot recently.

Oh, you read about them a lot... great.
So what lack of freedom exists on liberal campuses?

 

[forkup]

This isn't even the hard stuff.
When an individual is acting for the Government, the individual accepts the restrictions on the Government.

You either are extremely stupid or extremely dishonest.

I guess it could be a combination -
Do you have an answer?

Lol. We're did you get your law degree? Cosco's. ( I hope you get what I'm referencing. If you don't, you missed one of the most on point satire movies of all time.)

First. Nothing about the original OP referred to government action. Read it closely.

Second, even if it did you would still be wrong. The first amendment specifies restrictions on the government in the context of laws. The government is perfectly within its right to make requests. When they run into trouble is when they order restrictions on speech. Even then it is not necessarily something that's run afoul of the first amendment. Simply because not all speech is protected . As the Supreme Court has affirmed time and time again.
Feel free to disagree with them. In the meantime. I'd suggest you make sure you are absolutely certain about your facts before you call somebody dishonest. It will prevent me from referencing movies of this type.

 

[Billiejeens]

Lol. We're did you get your law degree? Cosco's. ( I hope you get what I'm referencing. If you don't, you missed one of the most on point satire movies of all time.)

First. Nothing about the original OP referred to government action. Read it closely.

Second, even if it did you would still be wrong. The first amendment specifies restrictions on the government in the context of laws. The government is perfectly within its right to make requests. When they run into trouble is when they order restrictions on speech. Even then it is not necessarily something that's run afoul of the first amendment. Simply because not all speech is protected . As the Supreme Court has affirmed time and time again.
Feel free to disagree with them. In the meantime. I'd suggest you make sure you are absolutely certain about your facts before you call somebody dishonest. It will prevent me from referencing movies of this type.

I was wrong (in your case)
Apparently, this is hard for you.

 

[forkup]

I was wrong (in your case)
Apparently, this is hard for you.

Nope, admitting that I'm wrong isn't hard for me at all. In fact it's a point of pride that I'm willing to do so, no matter how invested I am in my opinion. That's why you will find me admitting that I'm wrong on regular occasions on this board.

When I give opinions I will regularly admit that I could be mistaken. I do this even unprompted. I can even boast to have completely changed my position here. Something, I suspect, is completely unique in this place.

Not only am I not wrong. What you are doing is something called begging the question. It is a fallacy.

 

[scruffy]

I don't want my opponents to be driven offline, I want them to grow a brain.

 

[bripat9643]

Everyone who casts a vote can be argued to want to dictate rules. What of it? You seem to have a problem with fairly normal behavior that even you yourself admit to engaging in.

We already voted on the rules when we passed the Bill of Rights, moron

 

[Curried Goats]

We already voted on the rules when we passed the Bill of Rights, moron

Who gives a shit what those old dead fucks voted on? All rules are subject to change and reinterpretation by the living.

 

[bripat9643]

Who gives a shit what those old dead fucks voted on? All rules are subject to change and reinterpretation by the living.

Let me get this straight: you're opposed to the Bill of Rights?

The rules for changing the Constitution are specified in the document. Good luck with that.

 

[Curried Goats]

Let me get this straight: you're opposed to the Bill of Rights?

The rules for changing the Constitution are specified in the document. Good luck with that.

I'm pointing out that the bill of rights is open to interpretation depending on the make up of the Supreme Court. In otherwords, there's more than one way to skin a cat.

 

[2aguy]

This is the question for both Liberals and Conservatives. Suppose you win the Culture War. Your party can pressure all Social Media, web hosting providers, DDoS mitigation companies to ban your opponents.

The losers of Culture War could try to set up their own forum, but no one would give them web hosting or DDoS mitigation for fear of economic repercussions from your side. Are you happy?

As an American Conservative, we don't support suppression of speech...we support the Bill of Rights and the Constitution.

The left, however, support neither, and are currently working to destroy the Bill of Rights.