The random political thoughts thread (Part Deux) - Page 216

Cadaverous Pallor · 07-06-2007, 11:26 AM

Yeah, yeah, took my opinion to an nth degree. Yeah, we shouldn't have free reign to kick the sht out of each other for things said. But I still feel that there's something to the idea of personal responsibility, and personal consequences. I think Alex said it better:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alex

Though that is the idea, to some degree, behind hate speech regulations. That some thoughts are so horrible that the violent can't be held responsible for their behavior so the onus is on the speaker to be silent. The bad thing is that once such an idea exists, the contest it to get any speech you don't like put in that category.

Alex · 07-06-2007, 11:37 AM

I'm all for personal responsibility for the things you say. And I certainly agree that there are things that if said in certain places or ways you should not be surprised if someone kicks your ass.

But that doesn't mean the ass kicker is off the hook for their actions either. And in that exchange only one of the two people has committed a crime.

I'm can't quite tell if you think I'm endorsing the idea behind hate speech regulations, so I want to be clear that I don't.

scaeagles · 06-30-2007, 09:04 PM

It isn't that I hold the UN in such high esteem (obviously), it is that I don't understand how anyone who cites a UN report should be considered someone who just recites right wing mantra...is mantra the plural of mantra, or it is mantras? I learned the other day that the singular of confetti is confetto. Not that it matters at all, I just found it odd that there was a singular of confetti. Anyway.....

I don't think anyone claims there is not some negative impact on the earth by mankind, I just don't think that man is responsible for global warming.

Ghoulish Delight · 07-05-2007, 03:21 PM

Motorboat Cruiser · 07-05-2007, 03:28 PM

Yeah, Tony Snow is definitely a work of art. Or, a lying sack of ...

It's been asked before, but do none of these individuals realize that records are kept of what they've said earlier?

sleepyjeff · 07-05-2007, 07:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Motorboat Cruiser

It's been asked before, but do none of these individuals realize that records are kept of what they've said earlier?

Won't matter.....as soon as an Administration ends the next one is not allowed to use recoreds of the previous one in defense of its' actions or proposing action it wishes to take.

So I've been told anyway

Cadaverous Pallor · 07-06-2007, 12:24 AM

Random political thought.

When a person running for public office stands and says "any questions?" then goes on to sidestep the question asked of him, everyone who is witness to such an action should be horrified to their core. This person is supposed to want to represent the public. He needs to be perfectly clear in his intentions. He needs to speak squarely with the people he wants to represent. If he changes the subject, the whole press conference should come to a standstill until he does address the question, and if he refuses to do so, he needs to be booed off stage and never heard from again. How can people do something so obviously detrimental to the process of elections and governance itself and still be taken seriously?

I saw a clip of such action recently and I became extremely embarrassed of our political system and the fact that our society allows it to exist. It is intolerable.

To take a page out of another thread - I am seriously sick of this sht.

blueerica · 07-06-2007, 01:25 AM

The business law class that I'll be wrapping up next week has forced me to take a different look into laws, government, Constitution, etc. While at one turn, it's almost painful to do - on the other side, particularly from a business perspective - we've got a sea change happening right now, one that will last for at least a couple of decades before we see much different. Just take a look at our fairly young 5/4 split Supreme Court.

Now is not the time IMO to be testing certain rights, lest we want precedence to be set by what this set of judges says. Sure, things can be overturned, but... I'd just rather wait. When "Bong Hits 4 Jesus," off campus, non-school event isn't even protected as political speech - well... frankly, that's frightening. Not to mention the many other decisions in recent history that point... well. Screw it.

All in all, Bush wasn't kidding when he said he wasn't going to be a footnote in America's history. He was going to write a chapter. And that, my friends, he has done.

But hey, I'm a business student. I'm not out to change the world or fix any problems. I'm just here to try and see what's happening and make the best decisions based on what the present and future look like.

scaeagles · 07-06-2007, 05:30 AM

What if he was displaying "Give your life to Jesus" in the same spot? Would his openly religious statement, when being fought by the ACLU, be a problem? There was also a case where a student was either suspended or expelled because a security guard spotted a large knife in his car. The knife fell out of a box while he was helping his grandmother move and he didn't know it was there. Zero tolerance takes over.

There are many reasons we have our kids in private school.

It is a scary thing, indeed, when rights are restricted by government. The entire campaign finance crap that Bush signed into law (good Lord I don't know why I didn't jump ship at that point in time, but that's hindsight, I suppose) tells people they can't say anything negative on the airwaves about an incumbant within...30 days? 60 days? I forget off the top of my head....of an election.

I will say I don't see how "Bong hits 4 Jesus" is political speech, but that's beside the point I guess.

Alex · 07-06-2007, 06:34 AM

Either it is political speech, in which John Roberts was right on its intent but still wrong (IMO) on what could be done about it or it isn't political speech in which case the majority was not only wrong in whether the school has the authority to proscribe such speech but about whether such speech even happened.

Now, my only complaint about the defendant side in that case is that the kid didn't have the balls to say "Yes, it was a pro-pot message. So what."

07-06-2007, 11:37 AM	#2
Alex . Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 13,354	I'm all for personal responsibility for the things you say. And I certainly agree that there are things that if said in certain places or ways you should not be surprised if someone kicks your ass. But that doesn't mean the ass kicker is off the hook for their actions either. And in that exchange only one of the two people has committed a crime. I'm can't quite tell if you think I'm endorsing the idea behind hate speech regulations, so I want to be clear that I don't.
	Submit to Quotes

06-30-2007, 09:04 PM	#3
scaeagles I LIKE! Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 7,819	It isn't that I hold the UN in such high esteem (obviously), it is that I don't understand how anyone who cites a UN report should be considered someone who just recites right wing mantra...is mantra the plural of mantra, or it is mantras? I learned the other day that the singular of confetti is confetto. Not that it matters at all, I just found it odd that there was a singular of confetti. Anyway..... I don't think anyone claims there is not some negative impact on the earth by mankind, I just don't think that man is responsible for global warming.
	Submit to Quotes

07-05-2007, 03:21 PM	#4
Ghoulish Delight I Floop the Pig Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Alternative Swankstyle Posts: 19,348	__________________ 'He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me.' -TJ
	Submit to Quotes

07-05-2007, 03:28 PM	#5
Motorboat Cruiser Cruiser of Motorboats Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: So Cal Posts: 3,665	Yeah, Tony Snow is definitely a work of art. Or, a lying sack of ... It's been asked before, but do none of these individuals realize that records are kept of what they've said earlier?
	Submit to Quotes

07-06-2007, 12:24 AM	#7
Cadaverous Pallor ohhhh baby Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Parental Bliss Posts: 12,364	Random political thought. When a person running for public office stands and says "any questions?" then goes on to sidestep the question asked of him, everyone who is witness to such an action should be horrified to their core. This person is supposed to want to represent the public. He needs to be perfectly clear in his intentions. He needs to speak squarely with the people he wants to represent. If he changes the subject, the whole press conference should come to a standstill until he does address the question, and if he refuses to do so, he needs to be booed off stage and never heard from again. How can people do something so obviously detrimental to the process of elections and governance itself and still be taken seriously? I saw a clip of such action recently and I became extremely embarrassed of our political system and the fact that our society allows it to exist. It is intolerable. To take a page out of another thread - I am seriously sick of this sht. __________________ The second star to the right shines in the night for you
	Submit to Quotes

07-06-2007, 01:25 AM	#8
blueerica Nueve Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 6,497	The business law class that I'll be wrapping up next week has forced me to take a different look into laws, government, Constitution, etc. While at one turn, it's almost painful to do - on the other side, particularly from a business perspective - we've got a sea change happening right now, one that will last for at least a couple of decades before we see much different. Just take a look at our fairly young 5/4 split Supreme Court. Now is not the time IMO to be testing certain rights, lest we want precedence to be set by what this set of judges says. Sure, things can be overturned, but... I'd just rather wait. When "Bong Hits 4 Jesus," off campus, non-school event isn't even protected as political speech - well... frankly, that's frightening. Not to mention the many other decisions in recent history that point... well. Screw it. All in all, Bush wasn't kidding when he said he wasn't going to be a footnote in America's history. He was going to write a chapter. And that, my friends, he has done. But hey, I'm a business student. I'm not out to change the world or fix any problems. I'm just here to try and see what's happening and make the best decisions based on what the present and future look like. __________________ Tomorrow is the day for you and me Last edited by blueerica : 07-06-2007 at 01:48 AM.
	Submit to Quotes

07-06-2007, 05:30 AM	#9
scaeagles I LIKE! Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 7,819	What if he was displaying "Give your life to Jesus" in the same spot? Would his openly religious statement, when being fought by the ACLU, be a problem? There was also a case where a student was either suspended or expelled because a security guard spotted a large knife in his car. The knife fell out of a box while he was helping his grandmother move and he didn't know it was there. Zero tolerance takes over. There are many reasons we have our kids in private school. It is a scary thing, indeed, when rights are restricted by government. The entire campaign finance crap that Bush signed into law (good Lord I don't know why I didn't jump ship at that point in time, but that's hindsight, I suppose) tells people they can't say anything negative on the airwaves about an incumbant within...30 days? 60 days? I forget off the top of my head....of an election. I will say I don't see how "Bong hits 4 Jesus" is political speech, but that's beside the point I guess.
	Submit to Quotes

07-06-2007, 06:34 AM	#10
Alex . Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 13,354	Either it is political speech, in which John Roberts was right on its intent but still wrong (IMO) on what could be done about it or it isn't political speech in which case the majority was not only wrong in whether the school has the authority to proscribe such speech but about whether such speech even happened. Now, my only complaint about the defendant side in that case is that the kid didn't have the balls to say "Yes, it was a pro-pot message. So what."
	Submit to Quotes