Florida Republicans do not have free speech

#51
#51
lawgator1 said:
Actually, I've been thinking about this and will say that I wish that the likes of bham, droski, and BPV were representative of GOP leadership. I think the reality is that gsvol is more in line with the folks pulling the string right now.

Its not fair that I chastise the rational folks for being unable to defend their extremists any more than it is fair that I be derided when I can't defend Sharpton's rants.
Click to expand...
please don't say droski... he's off his rocker
 
#52
#52
lawgator1 said:
Florida Republicans do not have free speech......
Click to expand...

Really. What laws did Congress pass against them speaking?

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.

Passing the bar in Florida must mean that you can write your name in crayon.
 
#53
#53
VolDad said:
Really. What laws did Congress pass against them speaking?

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.

Passing the bar in Florida must mean that you can write your name in crayon.
Click to expand...


No, but it certainly helps if we can distinguish between the concept of free speech and the related, but quite different notion of a legal proscription like the First Amendment.

Use your usual sources of knowledge, such as Google and Yahoo and see if you can figure out the difference for yourself.
 
#54
#54
lawgator1 said:
No, but it certainly helps if we can distinguish between the concept of free speech and the related, but quite different notion of a legal proscription like the First Amendment.

Use your usual sources of knowledge, such as Google and Yahoo and see if you can figure out the difference for yourself.
Click to expand...

Free speech means that the gov’t will not persecute you. It does not mean that you can say anything you want without repercussion.

Surely even you can understand that.
 
#55
#55
Exactly. We all face consequences for our speech. The "free speech" concept is rooted in the government and it's ability to bring consequences for free speech.

Recent example, GEICO fired their voice announcer for his hate speech directed at Freedom Works. He put the GEICO brand in bad light as a result and they dumped him.
 
#56
#56
lawgator1 said:
Actually, I've been thinking about this and will say that I wish that the likes of bham, droski, and BPV were representative of GOP leadership. I think the reality is that gsvol is more in line with the folks pulling the string right now.

Its not fair that I chastise the rational folks for being unable to defend their extremists any more than it is fair that I be derided when I can't defend Sharpton's rants.
Click to expand...

Here's the thing - you are being an extremist yourself with your posts. They are full of conspiracy, exaggeration, hyperbole, etc. Your posts read like gs's just from the other side.

Just be rational yourself :good!:
 
#57
#57
VolDad said:
Free speech means that the gov’t will not persecute you. It does not mean that you can say anything you want without repercussion.

Surely even you can understand that.
Click to expand...

Sigh. Completely wrong.

Free speech as a concept means simply that you have unrestricted ability to say what you think.

The First Amendment specifically codifies that principle as to the Congress (and now, by extension, other levels of government) and forbids them from restricting you by enacting laws or regulations (with notable exceptions).

As discussed by bham below, the private secotr can restrict your speech in many ways, including kicking you out of a political party, or firing you from your job.

My original point was that the Florida GOP, in advancing the interests of the tea party darling Marco Rubio, and having 1) stated time and time again that they are all about free speech and 2) having complained bitterly over the health care debate that the moderate GOP ideas were not being considered, are now taking the tack that if you are a moderate Republican interesxted in compromise with Obama or if you endorse such a Republican then you are out.

It was all horse hooey. The TP isn't about free speech in principle -- they are about their speech in practice. They aren't about incorporating the ideas of all sides --- they are about their own agenda and no one else's. They don't resent Obama for not listening to their ideas -- they resent Obama for being Obama.

They have been exposed, and continue to be exposed, as the charlatans and snake oil salesmen they are.


volinbham said:
Exactly. We all face consequences for our speech. The "free speech" concept is rooted in the government and it's ability to bring consequences for free speech.

Recent example, GEICO fired their voice announcer for his hate speech directed at Freedom Works. He put the GEICO brand in bad light as a result and they dumped him.
Click to expand...
 
#59
#59
lawgator1 said:
My original point was that the Florida GOP, in advancing the interests of the tea party darling Marco Rubio, and having 1) stated time and time again that they are all about free speech and 2) having complained bitterly over the health care debate that the moderate GOP ideas were not being considered, are now taking the tack that if you are a moderate Republican interesxted in compromise with Obama or if you endorse such a Republican then you are out.

It was all horse hooey. The TP isn't about free speech in principle -- they are about their speech in practice. They aren't about incorporating the ideas of all sides --- they are about their own agenda and no one else's. They don't resent Obama for not listening to their ideas -- they resent Obama for being Obama.

.
Click to expand...

You are mixing concepts. In your point 2) above there is a clear difference between saying Dems didn't actively consider Rep proposals and the concept of free speech. The two are not even close. No one on the R side was claiming their right to free speech was being violated in the HC debate. They claimed their speech wasn't being heard. Major difference.

On point 1) where are you seeing that the TP made claims about being all about free speech? I don't recall them being any more free speech focused than any other political group.

You hated my examples but they show the same thing - one part of a political party threatening/pressuring another part (a more moderate part) to go along.

Nothing new here and definitely not a "free speech" issue.
 
#60
#60
lawgator1 said:
Sigh. Completely wrong.

Free speech as a concept means simply that you have unrestricted ability to say what you think.

The First Amendment specifically codifies that principle as to the Congress (and now, by extension, other levels of government) and forbids them from restricting you by enacting laws or regulations (with notable exceptions).

As discussed by bham below, the private secotr can restrict your speech in many ways, including kicking you out of a political party, or firing you from your job.

My original point was that the Florida GOP, in advancing the interests of the tea party darling Marco Rubio, and having 1) stated time and time again that they are all about free speech and 2) having complained bitterly over the health care debate that the moderate GOP ideas were not being considered, are now taking the tack that if you are a moderate Republican interesxted in compromise with Obama or if you endorse such a Republican then you are out.

It was all horse hooey. The TP isn't about free speech in principle -- they are about their speech in practice. They aren't about incorporating the ideas of all sides --- they are about their own agenda and no one else's. They don't resent Obama for not listening to their ideas -- they resent Obama for being Obama.

They have been exposed, and continue to be exposed, as the charlatans and snake oil salesmen they are.
Click to expand...

You do realize the mental gymnastics you just went into make your point pretty weak don't you?

No one is telling this man or any other that they can't have their ideas, what they are saying is that they will back the candidate who is more in line with their way of thinking. Stuff like this happens all the time LG, both political parties.
 
#61
#61
volinbham said:
You are mixing concepts. In your point 2) above there is a clear difference between saying Dems didn't actively consider Rep proposals and the concept of free speech. The two are not even close. No one on the R side was claiming their right to free speech was being violated in the HC debate. They claimed their speech wasn't being heard. Major difference.

On point 1) where are you seeing that the TP made claims about being all about free speech? I don't recall them being any more free speech focused than any other political group.

You hated my examples but they show the same thing - one part of a political party threatening/pressuring another part (a more moderate part) to go along.

Nothing new here and definitely not a "free speech" issue.
Click to expand...


Ergo why I loathe true believers on either side of the aisle.
 
#64
#64
kptvol said:
Are you talking about an aisle that separates the GOP from the Tea Party or what?
Click to expand...


That was pretty funny, right there.

To clarify, I truly loathe the extreme members of the TP (not all, but the extreme) as racist, anti-intellectual, and potentially violent threats to the country.

I have no respect for the extreme elements on the left, the conspiracy nuts, the environmental hypocrites, the class warfare, gender warfare, race-baiting and anti-intellectual faction that sees all business as evil.

I respect within the GOP and the conservative movement Ronald Reagan, John McCain, and George Will. Perhaps that gives you a sense of where I'm coming from.
 
#65
#65
lawgator1 said:
That was pretty funny, right there.

To clarify, I truly loathe the extreme members of the TP (not all, but the extreme) as racist, anti-intellectual, and potentially violent threats to the country.

I have no respect for the extreme elements on the left, the conspiracy nuts, the environmental hypocrites, the class warfare, gender warfare, race-baiting and anti-intellectual faction that sees all business as evil.

I respect within the GOP and the conservative movement Ronald Reagan, John McCain, and George Will. Perhaps that gives you a sense of where I'm coming from.
Click to expand...

link?
 
#66
#66
when you can't rationally argue the point you just pull the race card. the liberal doctrine.
 
#67
#67
lawgator1 said:
Ergo why I loathe true believers on either side of the aisle.
Click to expand...

Let’s assume that the TPers are extremist. They have no power.

Why are you so obsessed with them instead of the extremist (Obama, Pelosi, Reid, and gang) who have the power?
 
#68
#68
VolDad said:
Let’s assume that the TPers are extremist. They have no power.

Why are you so obsessed with them instead of the extremist (Obama, Pelosi, Reid, and gang) who have the power?
Click to expand...

because he approves of them in power
 
#70
#70
I have come to a conclusion about LG, I actually think he does try to be nonpartisan much of the time in his comments and posts and tends to analyze things which isn't so bad. Where I think his fault in his thinking is when he does analyze things he overlooks one of the most common traits of man, their individual bias. It seems at times he tries to rationalize around that bias instead of confronting it and working past it. Maybe I'm off base but IJMO.
 
#72
#72
KB5252 said:
I have come to a conclusion about LG, I actually think he does try to be nonpartisan much of the time in his comments and posts and tends to analyze things which isn't so bad. Where I think his fault in his thinking is when he does analyze things he overlooks one of the most common traits of man, their individual bias. It seems at times he tries to rationalize around that bias instead of confronting it and working past it. Maybe I'm off base but IJMO.
Click to expand...


That's fair.

As you say, when I view an argument it is not in a vaccum. I test its objectivity and assumptions based on my own judgments and experiences, just like everyone.

So if I am left of center, then that will affect my perception as to the legitimacy of the assumptions that underpin the argument I'm considering.

What I try to do, however, is strive to look at the logic of the argument and account for the bias in my assessment of the assumption.

My father was a judge. He told me one time that the thing about crazy people is this: They can come in to court and be perfectly rational or logical in their thinking, its just that they start off from screwy factual assumption, i.e. that they are Jesus Christ.

If they were Christ, then what they say would make perfect sense. They aren't, so it sounds nutty, even if the logic is sound.

That is frankly why people like Beck and Hannity, or Sharpton and Jackson, irritate me so much. Regardless of their assumptions and the critique to be had of them, their sloppy (often intentionally so) logic just flat out pisses me off.
 
#73
#73
lawgator1 said:
That is frankly why people like Beck and Hannity, or Sharpton and Jackson, irritate me so much. Regardless of their assumptions and the critique to be had of them, their sloppy (often intentionally so) logic just flat out pisses me off.
Click to expand...

But your logic tying Florida politician actions to free speech is sloppy as can be. Are you irritated with yourself for starting this thread? :p
 
#74
#74
lawgator1 said:
I respect within the GOP and the conservative movement Ronald Reagan, John McCain, and George Will. Perhaps that gives you a sense of where I'm coming from.
Click to expand...

Ronnie would likely be the Tea Party poster boy and George Will ain't far behind.
 
#75
#75
volinbham said:
Ronnie would likely be the Tea Party poster boy and George Will ain't far behind.
Click to expand...


Reagan would sympathize with their cause, yes, but he'd be put off by their heavy handedness.

I guarantee you George Will absolutely abhors them.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top