What does freedom of speech mean to you?

[toaster]

Concise statements and meaningful discourse please.

[Blue Jays]

Freedom to request a separate folder for OT posts on this bicycle forum!

[RPS]

My opinion is irrelevant……ask Serotta. :)

[dauwhe]

The first amendment states:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Note that it says that Congress can't pass a law restricting your speech. It doesn't say that I have to let you say anything you want in my house. It doesn't say that Serotta can't lock threads or ban users.

Dave

P.S. Please add OT to the thread title.

[scottcw2]

Freedom to request a separate folder for OT posts on this bicycle forum!

And freedom to ask people to stop posting OT threads. This is a CYCLING forum. Most other forums ban political and religious threads. I sincerely wish Serotta would follow suit.

[Blue Jays]

"...And freedom to ask people to stop posting OT threads. This is a CYCLING forum. Most other forums ban political and religious threads. I sincerely wish Serotta would follow suit..."Agree 100%!

[Viper]

And freedom to ask people to stop posting OT threads. This is a CYCLING forum. Most other forums ban political and religious threads. I sincerely wish Serotta would follow suit.

Perhaps the apex of freedom of speech is taking an issue like this, putting it to a vote whereby the numerical majority rule.

[dauwhe]

Perhaps the apex of freedom of speech is taking an issue like this, putting it to a vote whereby the numerical majority rule.

Ah, the tyranny of the majority!

;)

Dave

[toaster]

Ah, perhaps the freedom to post the name of my favorite live album.


We're a bit touchy tonite, aren't we????

[William]

And freedom to ask people to stop posting OT threads. This is a CYCLING forum. Most other forums ban political and religious threads. I sincerely wish Serotta would follow suit.


And...the freedom to exercise your adult apptitude to not read OT posts and move along to something else you find interesting.

And...the freedom to let others who do enjoy OT posts, enjoy participating in them while others can move along to cycling specific threads.

And the freedom to exercise choice.

And...the freedom to understand...or not understand...that OT posts have been part of this forum pretty much from the beginning and it's still functioning just fine.

And...though I'm not crazy about political and/or religeous threads here...I exercise my freedom to move along and ignore them.

So, just exercise your freedom of choice to agree or disagree with me...and if you don't like it..well....that's life. Move along...



William

[cadence90]

My freedom of speech is to say, "Oh, hell yes!" to what William said.

The limitation of discourse surely doesn't fall under the definition of Freedom of Speech.

[girlie]

What does freedom of speech mean to you?

Maybe for me the more important question is....
What is the purpose of freedom of speech?

What a luxury to ask for speech to be restricted :D
It's silly - in my eyes.

I am proud of this forums tolerance, acceptance, and inclusiveness.
AND I FOR ONE WOULD LIKE TO THANK SEROTTA - YOU'RE DOING A GREAT JOB. THANK YOU!

What a luxury,
girlie

[cadence90]

Maybe for me the more important question is....
What is the purpose of freedom of speech?

What a luxury to ask for speech to be restricted :D
It's silly - in my eyes.

I am proud of this forums tolerance, acceptance, and inclusiveness.
AND I FOR ONE WOULD LIKE TO THANK SEROTTA - YOU'RE DOING A GREAT JOB. THANK YOU!

What a luxury,
girlie

W.....O.....R.....D..........U.....P.

In my "I's" too. :D

Or: What a restriction to not ask that speech be luxurious....

[Ray]

I didn't take the OP's intent to talk about what should be allowed on this forum, but more broadly. In which case, free speech means the ability to say ANYTHING you damn well please short of the classic "fire in a crowded theater (that's not on fire)". No matter how wrong the speaker may be to me or to you or to him or herself.

Pretty simple, yet pretty profound if you look at the way MOST governments have functions throughout history.

-Ray

[93legendti]

The ability to offend a woman by asking: "Who writes your questions?"

[girlie]

The ability to offend a woman by asking: "Who writes your questions?"


Yes, and another example is that the KKK has the right to make statements which offend Blacks.
These are examples of free speech. We may not agree with these notions but we accept the freedom to say them.
93legendti I would simply ask why use this as an example of freedom of speech? Point?
You equate freedom of speech with the "ability to offend" that is the saddest thing I have ever heard :(
girlie

[Viper]

The ACLU. I'll never figure those cats out. One minute they'd defend the KKK, next they'll sue them for discrimination. They get on board the strangest buses, defending NAMBLA etc.

My relative, the dude with the blue and white paint scheme:

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/882018/braveheart_freedom_speech/

William Wallace is someone I think of when speaking of freedoms, certainly Nathan Hale, Rosa Parks, but men like Archbishop Desmond Tutu, Nelson Mandela especially MLK come to mind.

Freedom of speech in space is important too:

http://www.whatgoeson.com/news/the-beatles/20080131152335/nasa-beams-the-beatles-into-space.html


:beer:

[Climb01742]

And...the freedom to exercise your adult apptitude to not read OT posts and move along to something else you find interesting.

And...the freedom to let others who do enjoy OT posts, enjoy participating in them while others can move along to cycling specific threads.

And the freedom to exercise choice.

And...the freedom to understand...or not understand...that OT posts have been part of this forum pretty much from the beginning and it's still functioning just fine.

And...though I'm not crazy about political and/or religeous threads here...I exercise my freedom to move along and ignore them.

So, just exercise your freedom of choice to agree or disagree with me...and if you don't like it..well....that's life. Move along...



William

as a serial OT offender, i hope william's opinion is shared by many others. i could care less about any thread about campy, yet i will defend anyone's right to talk about campy. :beer: :D ;)

[Tobias]

That I can say whatever I want until someone bigger, stronger, and meaner stops me.

[RPS]

The reality version? ;)

[girlie]

Tobias and RPS you two smell funny - so I've heard ;)
meaner,
girlie

[Pete Serotta]

I request that you look at the ## of threads closed and the content - and then look at the total number of posts and threads- Before passing judgement on freedom of speech or the heavy handed moderation :confused: .

Few, including me, have a neutral view of anything, but I assure you there were MANY more notes on wanting something closed then there were closed threads. This is not a "right or wrong" just a statement. We are individuals with strong views and also mostly thinkers.

I am the only person to blame for closures, not SEROTTA nor the other moderators. I learn from all of you and continue to re-evaluate what is closed. A bike forum would be pretty dull if all that was talked about was SEROTTA but at the same time there are some responsibilities for hosters' and posters. Giving my logic for a specific closure would, in my view, just add to the potential fuel of the thread. On some posts, more fact is given or others it is tone and direction of the thread that gets it closed.

Freedom of speech or posting does not have to come at the expense of attacks on others. (and this is where many of these threads end up.) If you feel strongly about a topic that is not welcome here, please feel free to start you own blog. You might even want to use your own name, so that it can be a more meaningful discussion.

If we just look at this thread - did a forumite or a previous post offed the initial thread poster? Why was it posted? What was the message they wanted to convey? :confused: :confused:




Freedom of speech is a cornerstone of the forum and of the country BUT what I request is some common sense is what, why, and requested results. The VAST majority of folks do this in their "every day" life both personal and business.

[cadence90]

Yes, and another example is that the KKK has the right to make statements which offend Blacks.
These are examples of free speech. We may not agree with these notions but we accept the freedom to say them.
93legendti I would simply ask why use this as an example of freedom of speech? Point?
You equate freedom of speech with the "ability to offend" that is the saddest thing I have ever heard :(
girlie
g:
Exactly.

But do you even really need to ask, at this point?
The cards are on the table, face up. Nothing showing.

What exactly does "the ability to offend" even mean? Is this statement even logical?
I don't think so, because obviously even people without "ability" can offend, greatly.

Comments such as the one quoted ≠ freedom of speech; they simply represent a blind adherence to discrimination as some absurd sense of self-indulgent and self-righteous "privilege".

That's the saddest contradiction to an open society: why aren't we past this yet, after all these years?
I mean, really, Susan B. Anthony was active in 1852, for crying out loud....

[Pete Serotta]

And then what ? It is the SEROTTA forum not the "APEX OF FREEDOM" forum.

SHould we also vote on who should be allowed to register for the forum or kicked off the forum? :confused:

Folks prior to now, and I am sure in the future, will vote with their fingers, if the forum no longer gives them what they expect when they come here - they will stop coming.

We try to make it the most for the most folks - bikes, cycling, world events, and the education gained from the great folks on the forum.

For those that this is not enough....there are many sites, blogs, and other media that is more specific

.

Perhaps the apex of freedom of speech is taking an issue like this, putting it to a vote whereby the numerical majority rule.

[girlie]

I saw Vipers posts as pro-forum and it's moderates.
girlie

edited: I was asked to bring back my original post.

[fiamme red]

as a serial OT offender, i hope william's opinion is shared by many others. i could care less about any thread about campy, yet i will defend anyone's right to talk about campy. :beer: :D ;)I also share William's opinion. If I have no interest in a thread, I just don't open it.

But as for Climb not caring about Campy threads, didn't he start the longest Campy vs. Shimano thread in the history of the Internet? ;) :D :p

http://forums.thepaceline.net/showthread.php?t=4069

[Viper]

And then what ? It is the SEROTTA forum not the "APEX OF FREEDOM" forum.

SHould we also vote on who should be allowed to register for the forum or kicked off the forum? :confused:

Folks prior to now, and I am sure in the future, will vote with their fingers, if the forum no longer gives them what they expect when they come here - they will stop coming.

We try to make it the most for the most folks - bikes, cycling, world events, and the education gained from the great folks on the forum.

For those that this is not enough....there are many sites, blogs, and other media that is more specific

.

Pete,

My post is totally not argumentative, it's just the opposite, pro-forum and moreso, pro-Democracy. Do you see it differently and if so, why? My post states the obvious...and I often say that nobody or very few are willing to state the obvious during a meeting. I can't tell you how many meetings I sit in/attend where a bogus number/forecast is thrown out and I am the one who says, "Well, why don't we put that to vote? If everyone here believes that number/forecast to be achievable, lets own it by the act of a vote." It seems that my form of realistic measurements is now the topic of the day in my business, Wall Street and FOX News Alerts.

I don't need a forum, I am the internet, I've already saved Ireland, freed Scotland and one day if I'm lucky, I'll catch a 23' white pointer. :) I was simply stating the obvious, the person I responded to was anti-OT Threads, I am pro-OT threads, but that's just me. So, I fall back, actually, just the opposite, I'd reach up to Democracy and I did. I am pro-OT, I'd say 75% of whatever it is I write is OT. But one man's Off-Topic is another man's (or woman's) On-Topic. :beer:

Regards,
Viper

[cadence90]

as a serial OT offender, i hope william's opinion is shared by many others. i could care less about any thread about campy, yet i will defend anyone's right to talk about campy. :beer: :D ;)
Man, what are you even doing here???

You actually went to Maestro Pegoretti's workshop, where I'm pretty sure you were "corrupted" by an amazing atmosphere of democracy, diverse opinion, free speech, exchanged opinions, eclectic music and, wow, such radical ideas.... ;)

As I said, W (our W), is spot-on.

[RPS]

Tobias and RPS you two smell funny - so I've heard ;)
meaner,
girlieTo play devil’s advocate; freedom of speech often comes up during controversies, and someone is likely to be offended in one way or another anyway, right? So I get that it must also represent the ability to offend. Besides, doesn’t the truth offend some people at times? Otherwise we’d be taking political correctness to an extreme that could be counterproductive.

Having said that, I have no idea – nor do I care to know – what’s really behind this debate. I just hope it’s more serious than having a thread or two closed. That would be sad.

[Pete Serotta]

Viper, I saw it as pro-democracy but could also see it as fuel for the debate on OT and not OT threads (in addition to closures). We as a group have really beat threads content and freedom of expression into the ground....

I try to be as "open minded" as I know how on threads, meaning, and their outcome. (not as successful as I would like to be BUT that is part of my learning.)

If I was too sensitive on this one please accept my apology.

PETE


Pete,

My post is totally not argumentative, it's just the opposite, pro-forum and moreso, pro-Democracy. Do you see it as differently and if so, why? I don't need a forum, I am the internet. :)

Regards,
Viper

[gemship]

All sorts of good things come from freedom of speech. Off the top of my head I enjoy looking at hot porn and listening to great streaming radio whilst checking in on bike porn here at Serotta Forum. If I must say this forum is right up there with my most carnal knowledge ;)

[Viper]

Viper, I saw it as pro-democracy but could also see it as fuel for the debate on OT and not OT threads (in addition to closures). We as a group have really beat threads content and freedom of expression into the ground....

I try to be as "open minded" as I know how on threads, meaning, and their outcome. (not as successful as I would like to be BUT that is part of my learning.)

If I was too sensitive on this one please accept my apology.

PETE

I was saying to the dude, "Hey, Democracy is in action here!" And that's a good thing. And I agree w/you in that the topic has been fried more than a crab in Maryland, so my summation was that Democracy está aquí. I've cut down on Miami Vice, but they'll never take...my Star Wars or JAWS!!! (in my best William Wallace). :beer:

[ss-jimbo]

The ACLU. I'll never figure those cats out. One minute they'd defend the KKK, next they'll sue them for discrimination. They get on board the strangest buses, defending NAMBLA etc.

I actually have great respect for the ACLU. They defend the civil liberties of everyone, no matter how distasteful. In your example they defend the freedom of speech of the KKK, but oppose the views that would lead to the loss of civil liberties for others.

As goes for this forum, I appreciate the off topic threads, and hope they keep coming. I agree that part of freedom of speech is the freedom to ignore the speech of others. You don't have the freedom to FORCE anyone to listen.

Lastly, I think political correctness is abhorrent, and I'm a registered democrat. No one has the right to not hear offensive speech. I do agree that freedom of speech does not extend to all situations. I am a community college math prof, and I am very careful what off topic topics I bring up. I'll talk sports before class, and I'll talk politics, especially in the context of math (deficit spending and the future, social security, population growth, etc), but I try to make anything I say fact based. I also have been telling my students to vote almost every day. I let them know that the politicians ignore them precisely because they don't vote, and the only way to change that is to change that.

Sorry straying off topic, but suffice to say that freedom of speech does not (and should not) extend to the workplace. I do believe that any restrictions should be based solely on creating an environment in which workers and students (in my case) feel respected and not threatened.

[girlie]

To play devil’s advocate; freedom of speech often comes up during controversies, and someone is likely to be offended in one way or another anyway, right? So I get that it must also represent the ability to offend. Besides, doesn’t the truth offend some people at times? Otherwise we’d be taking political correctness to an extreme that could be counterproductive.


I agree that often in the search for truth offenses will be taken. Are you telling me 93legendti enlightened you with that statement? :D

Would you have been ok with 93legendti having written:
To have the ability to offend a black person by asking: "Who writes your questions?" Where is the value within this statement - the weight of it's meaning or directed point? Was it for truth or enlightenment. It was an offensive statement and I took offense, period.

Speaking in public is a barometer that measures social acceptance - and this is why I believe in freedom of speech we need a measurement of social acceptance. What's publicly accepted speech now is not the same as 1950 and my guess is it won't be the same in 3000 either.
girlie

[cadence90]

I actually have great respect for the ACLU. They defend the civil liberties of everyone, no matter how distasteful. In your example they defend the freedom of speech of the KKK, but oppose the views that would lead to the loss of civil liberties for others.

As goes for this forum, I appreciate the off topic threads, and hope they keep coming. I agree that part of freedom of speech is the freedom to ignore the speech of others. You don't have the freedom to FORCE anyone to listen.

Lastly, I think political correctness is abhorrent, and I'm a registered democrat. No one has the right to not hear offensive speech. I do agree that freedom of speech does not extend to all situations. I am a community college math prof, and I am very careful what off topic topics I bring up. I'll talk sports before class, and I'll talk politics, especially in the context of math (deficit spending and the future, social security, population growth, etc), but I try to make anything I say fact based. I also have been telling my students to vote almost every day. I let them know that the politicians ignore them precisely because they don't vote, and the only way to change that is to change that.

Sorry straying off topic, but suffice to say that freedom of speech does not (and should not) extend to the workplace. I do believe that any restrictions should be based solely on creating an environment in which workers and students (in my case) feel respected and not threatened.
Those are interesting and very valid pints, imho.

So, allow me to ask you (and all others here): are you a California voter?
If so, what about Prop. 8, which is by far the most widely aired (far more than even the Pres. campaign), advertised and controversial issue in this state?
Isn't a "Yes" vote on Prop. 8 a clamp-down on free speech, re: especially the educational system?

[1centaur]

I am very confused. Wasn't legendti's point that Biden got a free pass from the PC police when he asked that question to a female reporter, and that the free pass would not have been given if he was a Republican? I am struggling to figure out how girlie is reading that - as a generic and desirable approach to treating women without reference to Biden?

[girlie]

I am struggling to figure out how girlie is reading that - as a generic and desirable approach to treating women without reference to Biden?

Because I am a woman who wrote a question in this thread - even rewrote the very question posed by the thread. If Biden was the context he made his statement in reference to, and it is highly probable that it is knowing how political 93 is, then he might of wanted to reference that in some shape or form :D
I'd need more information on the Biden thing......though in the context of this thread how are you confused and how would one get all of that out of his simple statement?
Less offended though curious about the other conversation.
girlie

[1centaur]

http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/entertainment_tv_tvblog/2008/10/obama-campaign.html

I'm guessing it was assumed that we were plugged into this story. It's not getting as complete a treatment in some mainstream media as it is on the right.

[girlie]

http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/entertainment_tv_tvblog/2008/10/obama-campaign.html

I'm guessing it was assumed that we were plugged into this story. It's not getting as complete a treatment in some mainstream media as it is on the right.

I will look it over and I appreciate it - THANKS:)
girlie

[RPS]

Would you have been ok with 93legendti having written:
To have the ability to offend a black person by asking: "Who writes your questions?" Where is the value within this statement - the weight of it's meaning or directed point? Was it for truth or enlightenment. It was an offensive statement and I took offense, period. I'm also confused as to the underlying issues behind what's going on, and I'm not going to try to figure out details. My post also included the following:Having said that, I have no idea – nor do I care to know – what’s really behind this debate. I just hope it’s more serious than having a thread or two closed. That would be sad.Regarding the truth, I know it is sometimes hurtful, but avoidance is not the best solution IMO -- whether in the name of political correctness or not.

Also, I view "freedom of speech" differently than most Americans. It's a great concept but ultimately it comes down to enforcement; which means to me that he/she/those with greatest power often get their way. To me that's the saddest part of it all.

[girlie]

Also, I view "freedom of speech" differently than most Americans. It's a great concept but ultimately it comes down to enforcement; which means to me that he/she/those with greatest power often get their way. To me that's the saddest part of it all.

Actually, I think we agree and you restated my point pertaining to a social barometer:)
Best,
girlie

[Viper]

Those are interesting and very valid pints, imho.

So, allow me to ask you (and all others here): are you a California voter?
If so, what about Prop. 8, which is by far the most widely aired (far more than even the Pres. campaign), advertised and controversial issue in this state?
Isn't a "Yes" vote on Prop. 8 a clamp-down on free speech, re: especially the educational system?

I love California, great state, nice people. Does it matter if Prop 8 passes or fails? :confused: Won't Mayor Newsom break the law anyway? Didn't he issue nearly 4K marriage licenses breaking the law with each one? Mayor Newsom thinks he's a rock star, thinks he is the deal, the story and he is a walking E! Channel True Hollywood story...the rise to fame, the adultery with his campaign manager's wife, the blame of alcohol, the rehab, dating a 19 year old model, literally half his age, feeding her alcohol in front of the media...and the man wouldn't adhere to any laws regarding Prop 8 or legal immigrant policies.

Mayor Newsom is a sham, I believe he should've been arrested and it's nice to know his career has hit the ceiling as he can never ascend. He thinks he's got a shot in 2010 for Governor? :rolleyes: The man was given a job as SF Traffic and Parking Commissioner and turned it into 15 minutes of fame. His time is up atmo. A TV ad showing San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom saying California is going to have same-sex marriage “whether you like it or not” is not, not the great stuff elected leaders are made of, no. The tv ad continues, “Four judges* ignored 4 million voters and imposed same-sex marriage on California. It’s no longer about tolerance. Acceptance of gay marriage is now mandatory. That changes a lot of things,people sued over personal beliefs. Churches could lose their tax exemption. Gay marriage taught in public schools. We don’t have to accept this. (‘Whether you like it or not!’) Yes on 8.” Four million people spoke out? Welp Mayor, didn't the majority of voters, many more than 4M, take the time to vote, creating a law which your arrogance spit upon? WHY bother voting in CA I ask, if the Mayor of a city will break the law anyway?

The thing about laws is, Mr. Mayor, that if you don't enforce them, as an elected official, are we, the rest of America supposed to care about your Props? I only hope the Governor has Newsom arrested or better yet, a citizen calls 911 to have the Mayor arrested. I would.

* = see here:

http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/courts/supreme/highprofile/documents/02Campaign_for_Cal_Families_Opening_Brief_on_Merit s.pdf

http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:F6EWkBT9hNQJ:www.christianitytoday. com/ct/2004/augustweb-only/8-9-51.0.html+mayor+newsome+broke+the+law&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=us

http://mediamatters.org/items/200807100013

[RPS]

Would you have been ok with 93legendti having written:
To have the ability to offend a black person by asking: "Who writes your questions?" Where is the value within this statement - the weight of it's meaning or directed point? Was it for truth or enlightenment. It was an offensive statement and I took offense, period.I understand that having a first black president is a big deal, and that race sensitivity is higher than normal at present, but please understand that my very first president was biracial. In a way what we are going through is not entirely new to me. I grew up thinking it was normal.

[DukeHorn]

It's the freedom to express your ignorance openly in Pittsburgh (cough fruit flies and autism).

Heck if 1centaur is going to bring politics into this, I guess I should as well. Which leads to the corollary, it's the freedom to offend people who offend me.

[jhcakilmer]

It's amazing that the First Amendment is so pervasively ignored or subverted in the establishment of Sunday Blue Laws.........but most people don't care, or realize the issue.....or maybe it fits their religious or political agenda, so who cares about the "freedom of choice".

[gdw]

Everyone has the right to make offensive statements and fortunately most people have the tact not to. Hint, hint.

[Blue Jays]

"...It's amazing the First Amendment is so pervasively ignored or subverted in establishment of Sunday Blue Laws..."
/\/\ As an interesting aside to the post above, various Sunday Blue Jays Laws dictate that one should go out and ride his or her bicycle.

[Joellogicman]

It’s no longer about tolerance. Acceptance of gay marriage is now mandatory. That changes a lot of things,people sued over personal beliefs. Churches could lose their tax exemption. Gay marriage taught in public schools. We don’t have to accept this. (‘Whether you like it or not!’) Yes on 8.” Four million people spoke out? Welp Mayor, didn't the majority of voters, many more than 4M, take the time to vote, creating a law which your arrogance spit upon? WHY bother voting in CA I ask, if the Mayor of a city will break the law anyway?

None of this has happened with divorce, mixed race marriage and marrying outside of religion, is spite of the fact many churches say it is sinful, but the law allows.

The 4 judges did not make allowing Gay Marriage the law. Rather they said it is constitutional. Just as Millions in the US want gun control and 5 Justices said much gun control is not constitutional.

[Viper]

None of this has happened with divorce, mixed race marriage and marrying outside of religion, is spite of the fact many churches say it is sinful, but the law allows.

The 4 judges did not make allowing Gay Marriage the law. Rather they said it is constitutional. Just as Millions in the US want gun control and 5 Justices said much gun control is not constitutional.

I support gay unionship and would acknowledge all matters in terms of healthcare coverage, adoption etc to take place between such couples; it would be a lawful union.

However, if, if the law on the books prevents gay marriage and a Mayor goes down to the steps of Town Hall, as Gavin Newsom did and says, "Who cares about the law, step right up for a marriage" then that Mayor ought to be arrested immediately. The California Supreme Court acknowledged that Newsom broke the law. The law is black and white, it's not a rainbow. Newsom was elected to enforce the law, not make them up according to his personal whims.

Millions of Americans support gun control, the Second Amendment promises the right to bear arms. Law is law. Millions oppose abortion, Roe/Wade is the law. Prop 8 doesn't mean much to me when those who hold power, elected of the people, to enforce the laws voted by the people, do not adhere to the law itself. I ask the Captain Obvious question: if a social conservative was Mayor of SF and gay marriage was legalized, but the Mayor personally opposed it, prevented it, shouldn't the Mayor be arrested? Yes. I might be socially conservative, but right is right and wrong is wrong; I would support the impeachment of any Mayor, left or right, who does not fulfill his/her promise, oath, to uphold the Constitution of the United States of America.

Mayor Newsom is a criminal. And if there's nobody around in 2010 to oppose him, I'll grab some Neutrogena sunscreen and head west. :)

[93legendti]

A companion to Sen. Biden's "moment" is this clip:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iivL4c_3pck

[sloji]

Freedom is an odd word and can't be eaten although i've heard the phrase "i'll make you eat those words." I liken words to the web of a spider; the web allows the spider to catch his prey but also define his boundary...words are like this.

Words are also like this; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KtwXlIwozog
I'd be willing to say more words but i'm not that hungry today.

[Viper]

Missing Persons' summary atmo:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P6CunFiE0Cs&feature=related

PS. Now I know why Dad removed Mtv from the house, some of the outfits of the 80's...

:beer:

[dannyg1]

A companion to Sen. Biden's "moment" is this clip:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iivL4c_3pck

Frankly, I didn't hear anything outstanding in this clip, other than the obviously edited and paused exclamation points. Were you to supply a version of this interview without edits, I'll bet money that it was a responsible discussion of a wider issue, like the tax policies of the last 20 years and their wearing effect on the middle class.

To put it another way, It has become clear to most everyone that low-end videos like this are typically to be entirely ignored because of liberal editing techniques taken by less than sincere people trying to forward an agenda that is in and of itself, to put it kindly, less than sincere.

[1centaur]

Heck if 1centaur is going to bring politics into this, I guess I should as well. Which leads to the corollary, it's the freedom to offend people who offend me.

Just to be clear, I was trying to clear up what looked like a misunderstanding, and I did so without judgment.

[Joellogicman]

However, if, if the law on the books prevents gay marriage and a Mayor goes down to the steps of Town Hall, as Gavin Newsom did and says, "Who cares about the law, step right up for a marriage" then that Mayor ought to be arrested immediately. The California Supreme Court acknowledged that Newsom broke the law. The law is black and white, it's not a rainbow. Newsom was elected to enforce the law, not make them up according to his personal whims.

Most politicians swear to uphold the constitution first, law second. There can be and often are laws that are not constitutional. A politician has a choice whether to resign rather than enforce a constitutional law or refuse to enforce it. Personally, I do not think refusing to enforce a law that is not constitutional is illegal.

Millions of Americans support gun control, the Second Amendment promises the right to bear arms. Law is law. Millions oppose abortion, Roe/Wade is the law.

A constitutional right is not a law. It is a right that comes before the law. That is why Justice Scalia struck down a law which the Scotus decided denied people their constitutional rights.

Prop 8 doesn't mean much to me when those who hold power, elected of the people, to enforce the laws voted by the people, do not adhere to the law itself. I ask the Captain Obvious question: if a social conservative was Mayor of SF and gay marriage was legalized, but the Mayor personally opposed it, prevented it, shouldn't the Mayor be arrested? Yes. I might be socially conservative, but right is right and wrong is wrong; I would support the impeachment of any Mayor, left or right, who does not fulfill his/her promise, oath, to uphold the Constitution of the United States of America.

Again, you are combining upholding the constitution and upholding the law. They are two different things.

[girlie]

Just to be clear, I was trying to clear up what looked like a misunderstanding, and I did so without judgment.


And you did it well and I thank you again!
girlie

[Viper]

Most politicians swear to uphold the constitution first, law second. There can be and often are laws that are not constitutional. A politician has a choice whether to resign rather than enforce a constitutional law or refuse to enforce it. Personally, I do not think refusing to enforce a law that is not constitutional is illegal.



A constitutional right is not a law. It is a right that comes before the law. That is why Justice Scalia struck down a law which the Scotus decided denied people their constitutional rights.



Again, you are combining upholding the constitution and upholding the law. They are two different things.

I learned all I needed to learn about morality, laws and interpretation therein by reading Harper S. Lee's To Kill a Mockingbird.

"Personally, I do not think refusing to enforce a law that is not constitutional is illegal" you say, but it is not up to a two-bit Mayor to make that personal call. Laws are not personal, they are set in stone, not soft mud.

Mayors do not have the power to interpret the constitutionality of a law. The California Supreme Court told Mayor Newsom to blank the blank up. :) Personally, when a Mayor, any Mayor of any city gets on tv, as Newsom did and says, "You're going to _______ (insert blank) whether you like it ot not" he's not leading and he's lost...lost his stance and moreover, that's not Democracy, that's Communism. Mayor Newsom can be the mayor in just a few cities, I can't think of many that would accept his radical and illegal approach to governing. He likes laws that suit his taste and he'll break the ones he doesn't enjoy.

The death of right and wrong and the popularity of moral relativism is for me, a sad day and to checkmate Newsom I offer this: San Diego County Clerks who object gay marriage were allowed to bow out of performing the marriages if, if they objected to it morally and what did Newsom say? The Mayor (Newsom) suggested that clerks who refused to marry gays in California should lose their jobs. "If that is their job and they are going to be able to pick and choose based on their morality, then all of a sudden they are not doing their jobs," said Newsom, a Democrat thinking about running for governor to succeed Arnold Schwarzenegger. Appearing on ABC's "Good Morning America," the Mayor said: "I'm not interested as a mayor in moving forward with a separate but unequal process for people to engage in marriage. The people of this city, and certainly this state, are feeling that separate but unequal doesn't make sense."


Checkmate I say to Mayor Newsom and how? Those clerks are doing precisely what you did when you granted nearly 4,000 marriage licenses, illegally, based on your morality. Your corrupt and illegal form of governing, do the NIMBY rules apply? In fact, "San Francisco, led by Mayor Newsom and several members of the city council, opens a massive new front...if these marriages, performed in violation of California law, are able to stand and be recognized, marriage as we know it will cease to exist in California. Mayor Newsom and his co-conspirators know full well that they are in violation of California law. In 2000, California voters passed an amendment defining marriage as a relationship between a man and a woman--an action taken in anticipation of just the sort of audacious act undertaken by Mayor Newsom."

Mayor Newsom, I'd give a penny to hear one of his speeches and I'd ask for some change back. Mr. Newsom, because of you, nobody really cares about Prop 8 cause you don't adhere to the law of the land, nor the votes of the people.

Atticus Finch.
The Law.
Law of the Land.
Right and wrong.
Wrong and right.
Mayor Newsom couldn't carry Atticus' briefcase.

I'd enjoy a debate with the great leader of SF. :beer: Freedom of speech? Mayor Newsom has a pulpit, access and ability to offer his thoughts on Prop 8, but he does not have the right to break the law, regardless of his feelings about that law. Any law. All laws. The problem today is that our elected officials aren't following the laws and Newsom is a posterboy for dysfunctional leadership. He'll stand on the steps of City Hall with that cheesy smile, handing out illegal marriage licenses (which were voted by the good people, the majority of the Californian people back in 2000) but when other governing officials, clerks, choose to refute the new law for gay marriage he cries and whines wolf? Checkmate Mayor.


http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/05/23/9153

http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:TaeNyJRyrz8J:www.albertmohler.com/commentary_read.php%3Fcdate%3D2004-02-17+mayor+newsom+broke+the+law&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us

[Joellogicman]

call. Laws are not personal, they are set in stone, not soft mud.

Mayors do not have the power to interpret the constitutionality of a law. The California Supreme Court told Mayor Newsom to blank the blank up. :) Personally, when a Mayor, any Mayor of any city gets on tv, as Newsom did and says, "You're going to _______ (insert blank) whether you like it ot not" he's not leading and he's lost...lost his stance and moreover, that's not Democracy, that's Communism. Mayor Newsom can be the mayor in just a few cities, I can't think of many that would accept his radical and illegal approach to governing. He likes laws that suit his taste and he'll break the ones he doesn't enjoy.

Well, I am not from California and do not know Mayor Newsom from Adam. However, he apparently was elected by a majority of the electorate in a fairly large city.

Rosa Parks, on the other hand, was never elected to any office. When she opted not to yield her bus seat to white person, she was breaking longstanding, written in stone, law of the State of Alabama. She and like minded people were of the opinion that Jim Crow laws Rosa Parks sought to break were unconstitutional. She was ultimately proven correct.

I imagine there were many laws that Rosa Parks cheerfully obeyed. I also imagine society is far better off because of the she refused as it it did not suit her taste.

[Viper]

Well, I am not from California and do not know Mayor Newsom from Adam. However, he apparently was elected by a majority of the electorate in a fairly large city.

Rosa Parks, on the other hand, was never elected to any office. When she opted not to yield her bus seat to white person, she was breaking longstanding, written in stone, law of the State of Alabama. She and like minded people were of the opinion that Jim Crow laws Rosa Parks sought to break were unconstitutional. She was ultimately proven correct.

I imagine there were many laws that Rosa Parks cheerfully obeyed. I also imagine society is far better off because of the she refused as it it did not suit her taste.

Rosa Parks' silent form of protest was honorable, effective and historical.

An elected official, physically breaking a law, a Prop voted by the people of California, no, I don't see the comparison.

Rosa Parks was arrested for civil disobedience:

http://www.americaslibrary.gov/cgi-bin/page.cgi/jb/modern/parks_1

Bless her for her courage and convictions, but Mayor Newsom should've been arrested. His form of government is chaos and if...if laws are not upheld by our leaders, we have no government. The fact is Rosa Parks was arrested in the evening on the day she proudly sat in the bus, that was December 1st, 1955. Nearly a year later, Parks' public plea led to a 1956 Supreme Court decision banning segregation on public transportation.

So the contrast of Rosa Parks only solidifies my point: laws are laws until a judge, a court, a Supreme Court rule otherwise. If Newsom has something to prove, something to say about gay marriage, let him perform a non-violent, silent protest, not an active, illegal act and moreover, let him take his case to the law. Let him use the system, local courts and Supreme Courts, the law is not in his hands or mind. I don't know Rosa Parks, never met her, but I do know that Mayor Newsom isn't Rosa Parks, not even close.

PS. It is good speaking w/you, great and fair debate! I have to run to the gym and go sweat the beer and wings from yesterday.

:beer:

[BBB]

So the contrast of Rosa Parks only solidifies my point: laws are laws until a judge, a court, a Supreme Court rule otherwise. If Newsom has something to prove, something to say about gay marriage, let him perform a non-violent, silent protest, not an active, illegal act and moreover, let him take his case to the law. Let him use the system, local courts and Supreme Courts, the law is not in his hands or mind.

PS. It is good speaking w/you, great and fair debate! I have to run to the gym and go sweat the beer and wings from yesterday.

:beer:

An interesting debate.

So if laws are laws until proven otherwise (or at least not in an individuals hands or minds), then using your argument Hitler, an elected politician, was perfectly within his rights to introduce laws that enabled quite disgusting discrimination against people on ethnic grounds and those that would oppose such laws could only do so through legitimate means? What if the legitimate means weren't available as in the case of Nazi Germany? Where does your loyalty lie in that case - to the 'law' or to what is right?

What about Gandhi's non-violent protest and his encouragement to others to, in effect, break what he saw as unjust laws?

What about if those serving at Guantanamo Bay simply refused to take orders on the basis of what they are doing is against the law or what they perceive they are being ordered to do is against the law?

A hard debate for sure, but interesting when you think that the behaviour of Nazi Germany, as used in the first example, led to the introduction of various human rights treaties and laws designed to guard against certain types of behaviour, which the US Government, in the last example, has ignored through recent activity, to much international critisicm - both legal and political. I would not place the level of obediance you suggest (a law is a law) on what is written down on a piece of paper and signed off by someone in a position of authority when that law may well be manifestly ridiculous, unethical, wrong or whatever you want to call it.

[toaster]

I would love to ask the Supreme Court justices this very question, especially Antonin Scalia, since he likes the "dead document" not the "living document" also known as the Constitution.

The First Amendment to me protects political speech. It allows for verbal and published dissent from government without fear of punishment by the government. As it pertains to the press it means political discussion and dissent as well as general artistic freedom and allows for published work to be uncensored by government for whatever reason unless it violates civil law.

It also is about freedom of religion.

What it doesn't cover is civil speech or what should be considered manners, etiquette, personal slander, written or published libel. That is what laws were meant to address.

[cadence90]

I love California, great state, nice people. Does it matter if Prop 8 passes or fails? :confused: Won't Mayor Newsom break the law anyway?
What exactly is your point, besides expressing about 50 times your obvious extreme dislike for Newsom?

The point of this thread isn't Mayor Newsom, it's freedom speech.
I have a hard time understanding how "Yes on 8" would NOT be restriction of speech, as well as other, worse restrictions, while the demands for teaching "creationism", "intelligent science", whatever the hell one wants to call it, are not viewed by those that want Yes on 8 as ALSO restricting freedom of speech.

Re: criminal politicians I only have this to say: Ted Stevens, (insert other names here), etc., etc., etc.

How a US Senator who is a convicted felon is still allowed to remain a Senator and is not required to resign is pretty mind-boggling, no?

[cadence90]

None of this has happened with divorce, mixed race marriage and marrying outside of religion, is spite of the fact many churches say it is sinful, but the law allows.

The 4 judges did not make allowing Gay Marriage the law. Rather they said it is constitutional. Just as Millions in the US want gun control and 5 Justices said much gun control is not constitutional.
Exactly.

[cadence90]

Frankly, I didn't hear anything outstanding in this clip, other than the obviously edited and paused exclamation points. Were you to supply a version of this interview without edits, I'll bet money that it was a responsible discussion of a wider issue, like the tax policies of the last 20 years and their wearing effect on the middle class.

To put it another way, It has become clear to most everyone that low-end videos like this are typically to be entirely ignored because of liberal editing techniques taken by less than sincere people trying to forward an agenda that is in and of itself, to put it kindly, less than sincere.
In addition to that: while the bad graphics proclaimed it, I didn't actually HEAR Obama say that "it's a tragedy the Constitution wasn't radically reinterpreted to FORCE redistribution of wealth FOR AFRICAN AMERICANS...". What BS.

And why is it that the Civil Rights Movement is always only referenced towards African-Americans?

Then again, even commenting on a ridiculous youtube video posted by you-know-who is a waste of [my] time, time better spent on using the "Ignore this poster" option several times, as an exercise of my own freedom of speech.

[Viper]

What exactly is your point, besides expressing about 50 times your obvious extreme dislike for Newsom?

The point of this thread isn't Mayor Newsom, it's freedom speech.
I have a hard time understanding how "Yes on 8" would NOT be restriction of speech, as well as other, worse restrictions, while the demands for teaching "creationism", "intelligent science", whatever the hell one wants to call it, are not viewed by those that want Yes on 8 as ALSO restricting freedom of speech.

Here:

http://www.smartvoter.org/2008/11/04/ca/state/prop/8/

Are you discussing a different Proposition # 8 in California for this Novmember 4th, 2008?

I followed Proposition # 22 very closely back in 2000, watched 61% of Californians define marriage, then watched Mayor Newsom shock the country in 2004 with his speeches and acts (antics) as he married folks illegally (which were subsequently, judicially annulled) and things concluded in May, 2008 when the California Supreme Court voted 4-3 against Prop # 22. Alas, here we go again on November 4th with Proposition # 8, better known as The Marriage Protection Act.

I highlighted words above, connecting dots which lead to my position and posts as you were the one who originally raised the issue of Prop # 8 (in post # 35). And since it's about freedom of speech, welp, I utilized my freedom of speech. :beer:

Back in 2004, I was very close to calling SF Police (from my home in NY) and asking to have Mayor Newsom arrested. Would've been interesting, I'd get my mug on FOX and CNN, maybe Hardball if I was available. And, I'd do the same if it were a socially conservative Mayor breaking the law regarding marriage. Freedom of speech, imagine a phone call from over 3K miles away requesting a Mayor be arrested. That's freedom of speech!

Yes = http://www.protectmarriage.com/

No = http://www.noonprop8.com/

[cadence90]

Here:
You really don't need to post a bunch of links and highlights: I can read, I know the proposition, you are certainly entitled to your opinion, and I don't believe you answered the question, besides snipping the points you didn't want to address.
You haven't answered BBB's either.

If Newsom in fact does do what you so fear he will, he could be impeached or voted out of office, but I really doubt you'd have much success in Shaneing into CA and trying to arrest him, no matter what badge you wear.

Now, re: corrupt, lying, criminal politicians:......oops, sorry, I'm plumb out of ink.

[Viper]

Those are interesting and very valid pints, imho.

So, allow me to ask you (and all others here): are you a California voter?
If so, what about Prop. 8, which is by far the most widely aired (far more than even the Pres. campaign), advertised and controversial issue in this state?
Isn't a "Yes" vote on Prop. 8 a clamp-down on free speech, re: especially the educational system?

On the official website for "No" on Proposition # 8, California Superintendent of Schools let's us know that any discussion of the educational system is, "Absolutely not true, Prop 8 has nothing to do with schools or kids", video here:

http://www.noonprop8.com:8000/schoolsad

http://www.noonprop8.com/

http://www.noonprop8.com/about/why-vote-no-on-prop-8

So I'm not clear how Prop # 8 has anything to do with freedom of speech, it's about same-sex marriage versus domestic partnership. Could you define your point? I've already offered mine, numerous time while having an intelligent discussion with Joellogic.

Diving deeper on Prop # 8, we do see kids being used as pawns, on both sides of the aisle. The "Yes" folks want us to believe that our kids will be brainwashed in elementary school as they learn about gay marriage from their teachers. The "No" folks (and teachers themselves ala Californian Superintendent Jack O'Connell) declare that marriage on any level is not a topic in the school system.

So, imo it's a simple scare tactic by the Right, dragging the CA educational system into Prop# 8.

Or...is it? :confused:

"Supporters of Prop. 8 say that unless it passes, gay marriage will be taught in public schools. This is the theme of a television ad in heavy rotation on California's airwaves, and the Associated Press is reporting on October 22 that the issue has emerged as the leading focus of the campaign.[47],[48]

Frank Schubert, Prop. 8's campaign manager, was handed a hook on which to hang this argument in September when a group of 1st grade students from the Creative Arts Charter School in San Francisco went on an excursion to see their lesbian teacher marry her partner in a wedding performed by Mayor Gavin Newsom. It should be noted that this excursion was organized by the students' parents, and not by the teacher or the school. Nonetheless this event energized the supporters of Prop. 8, with Mr. Schubert saying that the field trip proves that their concern has been valididated that unless Prop 8 is passed, gay marriage will be added to public school education. "We are already seeing that happen", he says.

Prop. 8 opponents say this is fear-mongering, that there is no mention of schools or curriculum in the language of the proposition, and that "They just made something up in order to scare people and change the subject," according to Shannon Minter, who is the legal director for the National Center for Lesbian Rights."

I believe that field trip to witness a teacher's marriage was yet another Newsom stunt, another dumb move on his part and I disagree with it in that students have no business at Jane's wedding, whether she's marrying Christina or Christopher.

Cadence, it isn't that I don't have a point, it's that if I had the time and money, I'd run for Mayor of SF and lose, but look damned good doing it. Besides, the Governorship for CA is more my style, it'd be my ticket to the next stop, The White House. Proposition # 8 is about same-sex marriage versus domestic partnership, that's the meat on the Thanksgiving table, talk of kids and schools is simply dried out stuffing intended to scare da Caleeforneyahs atmo. I'm off to watch Season 7 of The West Wing, pretend stuff. If it passes, a new constitutional amendment to the California Constitution that will say "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California" and it will be known in law as the 'California Marriage Protection Act'...my hunch is CA will be well on the way to legalized same-sex marriage on November 4th as the voters will see "Eliminates Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry" on the ballot and they'll say, "No."

[cadence90]

So I'm not clear how Prop # 8 has anything to do with freedom of speech, it's about same-sex marriage versus domestic partnership. Could you define your point?
Again, I understand the terms of the Proposition.

My points are, to be more clear:
Wouldn't rendering equal marriage (not the same as domestic partnership) illegal be discriminatory and therefore a suppression of freedom of speech, expression and rights?

Why is it that the same groups that advocate teaching creationism in the schools (using freedom of speech as a platform) oppose teaching equal marriage in the schools (suppression of freedom of speech)? Aren't those positions logically opposing?

I do agree that passing Prop. 8 would not require the schools to teach (a term I find strange: how does one "teach" marriage, as opposed to discussing it?) equal marriage, as the constant "Yes" ads threaten.
But even so, what exactly would be wrong with discussing equal marriage in schools, along with equal rights regardless of race, religion, creed, etc.?
It's not as if kids (and we're NOT talking 2-year olds here) aren't aware of societal issues outside the schoolyard. In fact the number of children from equal marriage/domestic partnership households in the schools will certainly increase over the years, regadless of which Props. and laws are passed.

[Viper]

Again, I understand the terms of the Proposition.

My points are, to be more clear:
Wouldn't rendering equal marriage (not the same as domestic partnership) illegal be discriminatory and therefore a suppression of freedom of speech, expression and rights?

Why is it that the same groups that advocate teaching creationism in the schools (using freedom of speech as a platform) oppose teaching equal marriage in the schools (suppression of freedom of speech)? Aren't those positions logically opposing?

I do agree that passing Prop. 8 would not require the schools to teach (a term I find strange: how does one "teach" marriage, as opposed to discussing it?) equal marriage, as the constant "Yes" ads threaten.
But even so, what exactly would be wrong with discussing equal marriage in schools, along with equal rights regardless of race, religion, creed, etc.?
It's not as if kids (and we're NOT talking 2-year olds here) aren't aware of societal issues outside the schoolyard. In fact the number of children from equal marriage/domestic partnership households in the schools will certainly increase over the years, regadless of which Props. and laws are passed.

I think that laws, once on the books are hard to un-do, tougher than Campy wheels and Conti tires on a 98* day without gloves and trying to use broken plastic utensils on the side of the road (not that I would know :rolleyes: ).

So the law on the books now is same-sex marriage is legal in CA and MA, legal licenses are available. Prop # 22, which prevented same-sex marriage in CA was passed by 61% of Californians, but that was in 2000. I think a lot has occured over eight years. And maybe that's a good thing.

But I thought it was neat of Arnold Schwarzenegger, a social liberal, when in 2005, Prop # 22 was monkeying around in the courts and it was decided by the CA State Assembly to make same-sex marriage legal...Arnold said, "No dice, I veto you now hear me later" as he knew in his heart it was right to follow the will of the people of California, that 61% which voted five years earlier. That was leadership, something Mayor Newsom doesn't comprehend. Arnold opposes same-sex marriage and he quipped, "Gay marriage should be between a man and a woman." He's leaned on Prop # 22 for nearly eight years...

Prop # 22 was finally overruled in May, 2008 and I have to admit, even though I oppose same-sex marriage, the court's ruling is very effective as they raised the issue of interracial marriage and it certainly hits you upside the head..."The opinion, written by Chief Justice Ronald M. George, cited the Court's 1948 decision in Perez v. Sharp where the state's interracial marriage ban was held unconstitutional. It found that "equal respect and dignity" of marriage is a "basic civil right" that cannot be withheld from same-sex couples, that sexual orientation is a protected class like race and gender, and that any classification or discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is subject to strict scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause of the California State Constitution. Associate Justices Joyce L. Kennard, Kathryn Werdegar, and Carlos R. Moreno concurred. It is the first state high court in the country to do so. The Massachusetts State Supreme Court, by contrast, did not find sexual orientation to be a protected class, and instead voided its gay-marriage ban on rational basis review."

All that said, I think most Americans don't care what California does with Prop # 8, this time around or any longer as they'll be another Propostion, Bill, Veto, heck maybe even a chad controversy. While California has a yo-yo string yanking around the subject of same-sex marriage, the country has some greater issues at hand.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_California

[paulandmonster]

in todays politically correct society it means very little unless you have a good lawyer.

[cadence90]

All that said, I think most Americans don't care what California does with Prop # 8, this time around or any longer as they'll be another Propostion, Bill, Veto, heck maybe even a chad controversy. While California has a yo-yo string yanking around the subject of same-sex marriage, the country has some greater issues at hand.
Oh, I have absolutely no argument with that. Far more important issues are at stake.

I only raised the Prop. 8 issue in reference to the topic of this thread, not as a component of the national election.

[Blue Jays]

Missing Persons' summary atmo:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P6CunFiE0Cs&feature=related

PS. Now I know why Dad removed MTV from the house, some of the outfits of the 80's...Love the Warren Cuccurullo guitar sound. Dale Bozzio today:

http://www.dalebozzio.org/sitebuilder/images/DALERIE3-308x525.jpg

[jpw]

Freedom of speech. An interesting idea. The phrase does perhaps overlook that first there must be freedom of thought, otherwise the 'speech' it is based on is not 'free'. How many people in the modern mass media world actually have 'freedom' to think?

[93legendti]

In addition to that: while the bad graphics proclaimed it, I didn't actually HEAR Obama say that "it's a tragedy the Constitution wasn't radically reinterpreted to FORCE redistribution of wealth FOR AFRICAN AMERICANS...". What BS.

And why is it that the Civil Rights Movement is always only referenced towards African-Americans?

Then again, even commenting on a ridiculous youtube video posted by you-know-who is a waste of [my] time, time better spent on using the "Ignore this poster" option several times, as an exercise of my own freedom of speech.
You forgot to attack the poster about his license, tax liens, wardrobe and ability to use a computer. :D
But banning, that is right up Barrie's alley. :D

Freedom of speech. An interesting idea. The phrase does perhaps overlook that first there must be freedom of thought, otherwise the 'speech' it is based on is not 'free'. How many people in the modern mass media world actually have 'freedom' to think?

The modern mass "media" is no longer capabale of thinking. Freedom to think isn't the problem. Ability to think is.

Fluff pieces on Barries' wife and hit pices on Sen. McCain's wife. No one has commented on Barrie's wife's thesis, yet it is on the web to read. Or his destitute brother in Kenya. Or Sen. Biden's "charity"...It is hard to do your job when you are imitating a high school cheerleader.

[Elefantino]

As a card-carrying member of the modern mass media, I "think" I'd like to post before this thread is closed. :)

As for the rest of these screeds? People. C'mon. Some of you (on both sides) need to arrange to meet face to face so you can say these highly charged things to each other in person.

Oh, wait. That's right. You'd be afraid to.

Never mind.

[William]

The modern mass "media" is no longer capabale of thinking. Freedom to think isn't the problem. Ability to think is.

.


Well, the news programs I watch interview Repubs and Democrats, ask them questions and allow them to answer. Though many interviewers are sheep, ask a question to which most of the time the politician will skirt the question and go off on talking points. Only a few interviewers will actually pursue them to actually answer the questions asked. This happens on both sides of the isle. When I hear someone claim “Liberal media bias”, it’s almost always a republican politician or right leaning individual who is using it as an excuse to prop themselves up with their constituents or explain why their stance/view isn’t popular or resonating. It’s not far off from the group-think coercion tactic of “you’re either with us or against us” (if the media isn’t with our POV, they must be against us). It doesn’t seem to be considered that their thoughts may not be popular with a majority of the public. No room for alternative thought from that POV IMHO. In general (speaking in generalities here since there are exceptions), folks who are in the middle and to the left are generally more tolerant of other people’s views. Moving to the right it gets more along the lines of “My way or the Hi-way” line of thought.

You’ve heard a lot of TP’s (talking points) being thrown out by the republicans that Palin was a victim of “Gotcha media” etc… From the interviews I’ve seen she was asked very straightforward questions that any politician running for an office should be able to answer or work around. She just couldn’t answer them. No trick questions were asked. I’ve seen four separate interviews where she couldn’t correctly answer what the job of the Vice President was. No media bias, she just couldn’t answer the question…and it was recorded on camera. Biden has had his own gaffs true, but overall, fewer and they’ve been reported on as well in that “Liberal media”.

That same “Liberal media” is covering McCain’s right to free speech, to use it as a ruse to act like he’s all of a sudden against Bush and his policies to try to bolster his “maverick” status. He’s putting on a show and they’re covering it. ;) (Palin wink for ya :) )

Bottom line, a few media sources lean right (though talk radio is skewed to the right), a few lean left, and most are about in the middle giving both sides a say. Most Americans who use at least 20% or their brain power can distinguish between them.


IMO,
William

[William]

As a card-carrying member of the modern mass media, I "think" I'd like to post before this thread is closed. :)

As for the rest of these screeds? People. C'mon. Some of you (on both sides) need to arrange to meet face to face so you can say these highly charged things to each other in person.

Oh, wait. That's right. You'd be afraid to.

Never mind.


If you're going to talk the talk,

You better be able to walk the walk. :cool:




William

[girlie]

Can I cut in ;)

Let's Dance (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=30AVhf-ZLwM)

girlie

[93legendti]

http://www.wbez.org/audio_library/od_rajan01.asp#010118

...The question of leftwards media bias has been settled by the preponderence of studies quite conclusively. I won't debate it here.

Take away Fox and talk radio and you'd have nothing much else to point to. The Journal is not mainstream and its journalism has been far less right than its two editorial pages - I read it every day for my job and I sense that is changing (content starting to go right), FYI...

[cadence90]

You forgot to attack the poster about his license, tax liens, wardrobe and ability to use a computer. :D
Oh, come on: I might be a really mean meanie, but I'm not that nucular. :p

Freedom of speech. An interesting idea. The phrase does perhaps overlook that first there must be freedom of thought, otherwise the 'speech' it is based on is not 'free'. How many people in the modern mass media world actually have 'freedom' to think? The modern mass "media" is no longer capabale of thinking. Freedom to think isn't the problem. Ability to think is.I didn't interpret jpw's post as a comment on the "modern mass media" only, but also in reference to countries in which if you look the wrong way you're likely to get arrested or shot (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ym4OgU5UrF8).


This is OT here, but:
Especially after yesterday's news, I sure am glad that we have the ATF, SS, and FBI looking after the candidates, including the real cheerleader.
Those agents must really have their hands full these days.

[93legendti]

Oh, come on: I might be a really mean meanie, but I'm not that nucular. :p


Nor did you call your own constituents racist and redneck.

I didn't interpret jpw's post as a comment on the "modern mass media" only, but also in reference to countries in which if you look the wrong way you're likely to get arrested or shot (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ym4OgU5UrF8).



You might be right on that.

This is OT here, but:
Especially after yesterday's news, I sure am glad that we have the ATF, SS, and FBI looking after the candidates, including the real cheerleader.
Those agents must really have their hands full these days.

They seem to be able to find a needle in a haystack...

[cadence90]

They seem to be able to find a needle in a haystack...
Seriously, not to go too OT here, but how do they do that?
These guys are getting crowds of 30-100K.
How do the agents monitor all that? It must be an incredibly stressful and pretty terrifying job.

[Viper]

Seriously, not to go too OT here, but how do they do that?
These guys are getting crowds of 30-100K.
How do the agents monitor all that? It must be an incredibly stressful and pretty terrifying job.

We'll never get full details on how, but The Patriot Act has it's moments. Of course most cry out about being disenfranchised by The Patriot Act, but then again, those same people prolly can't spell the word.

[Blue Jays]

"...How do the agents monitor all that?..."The youngsters arrested by authorities were planning to attempt their despicable plan while wearing formal tuxedos, top hats, and gloves.
These two brainless nitwits had only known each other for a month and were chattering via some bizarre forum, so it's no wonder they were caught! :D

[Elefantino]

I just thought of another one.

Freedom of speech means being able to say that I am a Liberal, capital L, and know that although in some parts of the country I may be pilloried, that's OK.

Here in Neckville, if you're a Liberal you have to register like a sex offender. ;)

[johnnymossville]

I just thought of another one.

Freedom of speech means being able to say that I am a Liberal, capital L, and know that although in some parts of the country I may be pilloried, that's OK.

Here in Neckville, if you're a Liberal you have to register like a sex offender. ;)

There's no way I could tell what party I belong to where I work. They'd make life miserable and shout me down like those screeching hyenas on The View.

[Ray]

There's no way I could tell what party I belong to where I work. They'd make life miserable and shout me down like those screeching hyenas on The View.
You mean worse than we do here?!?!?!?

OK fellow libs, we're just gonna have to try HARDER! :cool:

-Ray

[johnnymossville]

...but here there at least one other. Where I work it's 150 to 1. LOL

[cadence90]

You mean worse than we do here?!?!?!?

OK fellow libs, we're just gonna have to try HARDER! :cool:

-Ray
OK: I'll contribute:
__________________
O frickin' BAMA'08 - '16!
.
.

[johnnymossville]

...another thing, you guys ride bikes. That's cool.

[93legendti]

Seriously, not to go too OT here, but how do they do that?
These guys are getting crowds of 30-100K.
How do the agents monitor all that? It must be an incredibly stressful and pretty terrifying job.

I don't know the specifics here, but I am sure it is a combination of good intelligence, hard work, devoted agents of the highest capabilities, intra-agency cooperation and (gasp) some form of profiling. Oh, and they don't ask nicely for information.

To find out how Israel does it, read "The Hunt For the Engineer" and you'll learn how a lethal bomb maker's cellphone was booby trapped by Israeli agents.

[cadence90]

The youngsters arrested by authorities were planning to attempt their despicable plan while wearing formal tuxedos, top hats, and gloves.
These two brainless nitwits had only known each other for a month and were chattering via some bizarre forum, so it's no wonder they were caught! :D
I read that. The MySpace photo of the one guy was pretty terrifying.
The "plan" was one of the most disgusting things I've ever read.
The definition of what 88 and 14 (= the 114 targets) was truly shocking as well.

[93legendti]

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-obamamideast10apr10,0,7297945,print.story

...At Khalidi's 2003 farewell party, for example, a young Palestinian American recited a poem accusing the Israeli government of terrorism in its treatment of Palestinians and sharply criticizing U.S. support of Israel. If Palestinians cannot secure their own land, she said, "then you will never see a day of peace."

One speaker likened "Zionist settlers on the West Bank" to Osama bin Laden, saying both had been "blinded by ideology."

Obama adopted a different tone in his comments and called for finding common ground. But his presence at such events, as he worked to build a political base in Chicago, has led some Palestinian leaders to believe that he might deal differently with the Middle East than either of his opponents for the White House....Last year, for example, Obama was quoted saying that "nobody's suffering more than the Palestinian people." The candidate later said the remark had been taken out of context, and that he meant that the Palestinians were suffering "from the failure of the Palestinian leadership [in Gaza] to recognize Israel" and to renounce violence...Among other community events, Obama in 1998 attended a speech by Edward Said, the late Columbia University professor and a leading intellectual in the Palestinian movement. According to a news account of the speech, Said called that day for a nonviolent campaign "against settlements, against Israeli apartheid."

The use of such language to describe Israel's policies has drawn vehement objection from Israel's defenders in the United States. A photo on the pro-Palestinian website the Electronic Intifada shows Obama and his wife, Michelle, engaged in conversation at the dinner table with Said, and later listening to Said's keynote address. Obama had taken an English class from Said as an undergraduate at Columbia University.

Ali Abunimah, a Palestinian rights activist in Chicago who helps run Electronic Intifada, said that he met Obama several times at Palestinian and Arab American community events. At one, a 2000 fundraiser at a private home, Obama called for the U.S. to take an "even-handed" approach toward Israel, Abunimah wrote in an article on the website last year. He did not cite Obama's specific criticisms...

[William]

If I could figure out a way to balance his cerebral spinal fluid more to the center, why, why he'd be right as rain.



;)
William

[Ray]

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-obamamideast10apr10,0,7297945,print.story

...At Khalidi's 2003 farewell party, ....
Is it really free speech when you just repeat ***** other people say all the time? I guess...

-Ray

[93legendti]

Is it really free speech when you just repeat ***** other people say all the time? I guess...

-Ray
Hoping the LA Times doesn't release the tape of the party and that there isn't a second copy out there?

It must be frustrating that the candidate you LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLove has purposefully surrounded himself with people who hate your religion.

The Los Angeles Times is refusing to release a videotape that it says shows Barack Obama praising a Chicago professor who was an alleged mouthpiece for the Palestine Liberation Organization while it was a designated terrorist group in the 1970s and '80s.

[93legendti]

If I could figure out a way to balance his cerebral spinal fluid more to the center, why, why he'd be right as rain.



;)
William
Are you talking about me or B.O.? :)

[Viper]

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-obamamideast10apr10,0,7297945,print.story

...At Khalidi's 2003 farewell party, for example, a young Palestinian American recited a poem accusing the Israeli government of terrorism in its treatment of Palestinians and sharply criticizing U.S. support of Israel. If Palestinians cannot secure their own land, she said, "then you will never see a day of peace."

One speaker likened "Zionist settlers on the West Bank" to Osama bin Laden, saying both had been "blinded by ideology."

Obama adopted a different tone in his comments and called for finding common ground. But his presence at such events, as he worked to build a political base in Chicago, has led some Palestinian leaders to believe that he might deal differently with the Middle East than either of his opponents for the White House....Last year, for example, Obama was quoted saying that "nobody's suffering more than the Palestinian people." The candidate later said the remark had been taken out of context, and that he meant that the Palestinians were suffering "from the failure of the Palestinian leadership [in Gaza] to recognize Israel" and to renounce violence...Among other community events, Obama in 1998 attended a speech by Edward Said, the late Columbia University professor and a leading intellectual in the Palestinian movement. According to a news account of the speech, Said called that day for a nonviolent campaign "against settlements, against Israeli apartheid."

The use of such language to describe Israel's policies has drawn vehement objection from Israel's defenders in the United States. A photo on the pro-Palestinian website the Electronic Intifada shows Obama and his wife, Michelle, engaged in conversation at the dinner table with Said, and later listening to Said's keynote address. Obama had taken an English class from Said as an undergraduate at Columbia University.

Ali Abunimah, a Palestinian rights activist in Chicago who helps run Electronic Intifada, said that he met Obama several times at Palestinian and Arab American community events. At one, a 2000 fundraiser at a private home, Obama called for the U.S. to take an "even-handed" approach toward Israel, Abunimah wrote in an article on the website last year. He did not cite Obama's specific criticisms...

If McCain was Pro-Palestine, you'd throw him under the bus too. Israel means as much to most American voters these days as the price of tea in China; it's all about us this time, our economy, our safety and clearly our foreign policies need to change, especially within the sands of the Middle East. Painting Obama with the vision as a terrorist-wannabe is desperation and insulting to the man on the lowest levels. I know of no other group or race who roams America, citing their vote on election days dependent upon that candidate's perceived cause and care of some supposed, ancient homeland across the Atlantic. Obama is going to end the Iraq war and if that seems to p*ss off Israel, or a few million America citizens, oh well, the American people will have spoken. Israel has her own problems, what with their leader, President Olmert having to step down due to financial scandal as he accepted bribes, cash from his friends in New York City. Election Day, November 4th, 2008 is about America. Election Day in Israel is her day, never the twain shall meet atmo:

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1221976325874&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

:beer:

[Ray]

Hoping the LA Times doesn't release the tape of the party and that there isn't a second copy out there?
Adam, if you consider it useful to repeat every piece of negative information (some legit, some trash) that the right wing blogosphere has come up with on Obama, go crazy wit your bad self. I could dig up and republish all sorts of nasty ***** about McCain, about Palin, probably even about you. I don't find it useful to use the bandwidth here (or anywhere else frankly) that way. That stuff is out there and the true believers will go find it - just like you. To me, that's the LEAST constructive and least civil part of any debate. And I've never made up my mind based on that kind of crap anyway (from either side). It's like the crazy preacher that used to spew in the main square at my college. People used to show up to laugh at him. Out of those hundreds of people who heard him, probably some ended up going down his road and many did not. But the ones who ended up there didn't get there because of him.

If you want to continue to post that stuff, that's your right (as long as the kind folks at Serotta determine it is). But that's where I exercise my right not to "listen" past the first line or so.

-Ray

[Viper]

Adam, if you consider it useful to repeat every piece of negative information (some legit, some trash) that the right wing blogosphere has come up with on Obama, go crazy wit your bad self. I could dig up and republish all sorts of nasty ***** about McCain, about Palin, probably even about you. I don't find it useful to use the bandwidth here (or anywhere else frankly) that way. That stuff is out there and the true believers will go find it - just like you. To me, that's the LEAST constructive and least civil part of any debate. And I've never made up my mind based on that kind of crap anyway (from either side). It's like the crazy preacher that used to spew in the main square at my college. People used to show up to laugh at him. Out of those hundreds of people who heard him, probably some ended up going down his road and many did not. But the ones who ended up there didn't get there because of him.

If you want to continue to post that stuff, that's your right (as long as the kind folks at Serotta determine it is). But that's where I exercise my right not to "listen" past the first line or so.

-Ray

Drinking coffee and watching FOX News right now, Seton Motley was on as FOX doing a piece on the LA Times video pertaining to Obama's supposed PLO-praise. The LA Times won't release the video and so Seton Motley, representing The Media Research Center, Mr. Motley was outraged the video is not available. Hmm. Thinking that Seton Motley sounds like such a nice Irish name :) I googled him. Here, ya don't think the guy doesn't have an agenda:

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=18701

http://www.newsoftheday.org/node/418

http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:aGdPAovZVhkJ:www.newsoftheday.org/node/407+seton+motley+israel&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=us

I'm sorry, but exposing folks like Seton Motley is just too easy nowadays. He sat in front of the camera, pretending to be some impartial Media Research Center, searching for the truth, as if it were a noble cause for some Freedom of Information Act...Mr. Mott, you are a two-bit hack, who's unable to seperate his own Zionistic faith, from political impartiality. Mott was on FOX representing AIPAC and The Israel Project look at his quick-links on his website:

http://www.newsoftheday.org/

In summary, it's sad to see this eleventh hour attack on Mr. Obama by a weak, transparent group and I ask, isn't this group of people, spewing hate on the potential winner of next Tuesday's election...how different are they than the men picked up by the ATF/FBI in Tennessee just a few days ago? Those men hated Obama for the color of his skin, AIPAC'ers hate him for his inability to blindly align with Israel. Sad.

[Kirk007]

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-obamamideast10apr10,0,7297945,print.story

...At Khalidi's 2003 farewell party, .

I guess for some freedom means freedom to associate only with those that I approve or agree with; and freedom of speech does not include the freedom to listen to and perhaps learn from those with other world views. Yep just like our fearless leader preaches, either you agree with me or you're un-Americ'n.

[RPS]

IMO the power of the presidency is highly overrated; making quite a few of these arguments superfluous. It’s not like the president can do much more than tie his own shoes without some form of serious approval.

In reality (my version) the biggest difference by far is whether the American people want to place (essentially) all control in one party. IMHO everything else is small potatoes by comparison.

Just wait a week – or two – and brace yourselves accordingly.

[Viper]

IMO the power of the presidency is highly overrated; making quite a few of these arguments superfluous. It’s not like the president can do much more than tie his own shoes without some form of serious approval.

In (my) reality the biggest difference by far is whether the American people want to place (essentially) all control in one party. IMHO everything else is small potatoes by comparison.

Just wait a week – or two – and brace yourselves accordingly.

The Senate/House are going to have a big change on the 4th, too.

[RPS]

The Senate/House are going to have a big change on the 4th, too.I know; that's what makes this presidential vote more critical than any in my lifetime.

[Viper]

I know; that's what makes this presidential vote more critical than any in my lifetime.

In terms of the economy, we have no idea who to vote for. It's a pick em'. However, the main issue, before this financial crisis, it was the Iraq War. Senator Obama ascended to where he is mainly due to his stance on the War and...in my opinion...the American people know on Tuesday, "If I vote 'D', then that War will finally end" and that, atmo, is why Democrats are going to have a big win on the 4th. AIPAC'ers are so upset and fearful of next Tuesday and why? They loved the fact Paul Wolfowitz, their guy, stuck 250K US Servicemen and women in the sands of the Middle East and they're terrified a 'D' in the White House, House, Senate will indeed, end the Iraq War and possibly avoid Iran all together. A lifelong conservative-Republican, I'm voting for Mr. Obama and the reasons have nothing to do with the economy atmo.

Freedom of speech? The mind controls the mouth and in America, we have the time and place to utilize our minds and speak them.

This message brought to you and paid for by Viper for America, 2020.

:beer:

[Pete Serotta]

after 5 pages has drifted back to elections....Feel free to open another thread but this one has turned into many ;)