This Isn’t Working Out (Allen West Statement)

#201
#201
More broadly, the damage he has done to Americans' faith and trust in democratic institutions will last long after he packs his bags and ends what will go down as one of the worst presidencies in history.

From an article.......ties into this Civil War nonsense and how it's a natural extension of Trumpism.
 
#205
#205
NorthDallas40 said:
And you’re wrong. Communication isn’t expression? Get a grip man!

And typical we don’t accept your broken logic so you take your ball and go home. So are you an LG alt?
Click to expand...

I suggested wrapping up the conversation because it is winding down into semantic disagreements. It’s not uncommon to disagree on the intention of the first amendment and we could argue semantics all day. Yes it covers speech, the press, religion, and assembly. Nowhere is it specifically stated that “expression” is a key term since it doesn’t even exist in the wording, though I can accept that the freedoms it itemizes could fall under the umbrella term ‘expression’. I do not accept the premise of money as a form of speech or expression. It is currency. My argument is clear, I’ve stated it multiple times now, I’m not going to repeat it again. Replying “You’re wrong” is not a refutation. If you want to argue then make an argument - as I said previously, I am happy to move on.

I have no idea what LG alt is. I do have an LG 65” OLED
 
#207
#207
luthervol said:
More broadly, the damage he has done to Americans' faith and trust in democratic institutions will last long after he packs his bags and ends what will go down as one of the worst presidencies in history.

From an article.......ties into this Civil War nonsense and how it's a natural extension of Trumpism.
Click to expand...

I had no faith or trust in our democratic institutions long before Trump. I question the sanity of anyone that does.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64 and NorthDallas40
#209
#209
canitpro said:
I suggested wrapping up the conversation because it is winding down into semantic disagreements. It’s not uncommon to disagree on the intention of the first amendment and we could argue semantics all day. Yes it covers speech, the press, religion, and assembly. Nowhere is it specifically stated that “expression” is a key term since it doesn’t even exist in the wording, though I can accept that the freedoms it itemizes could fall under the umbrella term ‘expression’. I do not accept the premise of money as a form of speech or expression. It is currency. My argument is clear, I’ve stated it multiple times now, I’m not going to repeat it again. Replying “You’re wrong” is not a refutation. If you want to argue then make an argument - as I said previously, I am happy to move on.

I have no idea what LG alt is. I do have an LG 65” OLED
Click to expand...
I never saw your clear definition. If you think you clearly said it I don’t see it.

And I’d submit you’ve already acquiesced on expression. And how you spend your money in getting your message out is clearly a method of expressing your beliefs.

My usage of “you’re wrong” was simply stating your points were false. We weren’t disagreeing you were fundamentally wrong in what you were stating. The only way you could sell that is to narrowly parse out the various forms of the term expression.

And again I’m slow. In a definitive succinct statement what was your definition of “working class”
 
#211
#211
hog88 said:
So advertising isn’t speech? Buying billboards, is that speech?
Click to expand...

the message is speech, buying the billboard or the ad space is an exchange of currency. The message itself is uninhibited based on the 1st amendment, the exchange is irrelevant
 
#212
#212
NorthDallas40 said:
I never saw your clear definition. If you think you clearly said it I don’t see it.

And I’d submit you’ve already acquiesced on expression. And how you spend your money in getting your message out is clearly a method of expressing your beliefs.

My usage of “you’re wrong” was simply stating your points were false. We weren’t disagreeing you were fundamentally wrong in what you were stating. The only way you could sell that is to narrowly parse out the various forms of the term expression.

And again I’m slow. In a definitive succinct statement what was your definition of “working class”
Click to expand...

again, semantics - I don’t agree with the correlation of money and expression. Money cannot express an opinion, only words can. Nowhere is money clearly defined as speech so that is your own opinion, you could certainly expound on why that is your position, but you can’t defend that within the explicit text of the first amendment

post #162 is where I stated my definition
 
#213
#213
canitpro said:
the message is speech, buying the billboard or the ad space is an exchange of currency. The message itself is uninhibited based on the 1st amendment, the exchange is irrelevant
Click to expand...

Ok then contributing to a campaign or PAC is the same thing, you’re using your money to get your message out so it’s covered under the 1A.

Oh and if you are going to tax a corporations income they have the same rights as a person.
 
  • Like
Reactions: vols4sure and NorthDallas40
#218
#218
hog88 said:
Ok then contributing to a campaign or PAC is the same thing, you’re using your money to get your message out so it’s covered under the 1A.

Oh and if you are going to tax a corporations income they have the same rights as a person.
Click to expand...

thats a leap. the government can, in theory, protect individual transactions from theft, fraud, etc., the FDIC protects money when it’s deposited in a bank, the first amendment protects speech.

based on the logic of your second point, I suppose we must use the transitive property for all things to determine rights...? Because an eagle flies it should be regulated by the FAA? Because a swimming pool is a body of water it’s living bacteria should be protected by the US Fish and Wildlife Service
 
#219
#219
canitpro said:
again, semantics - I don’t agree with the correlation of money and expression. Money cannot express an opinion, only words can. Nowhere is money clearly defined as speech so that is your own opinion, you could certainly expound on why that is your position, but you can’t defend that within the explicit text of the first amendment

post #162 is where I stated my definition
Click to expand...
Ok found it. Actually missed that one.

So here you define “working class” as anybody earning income. I agree it’s a broad term.
canitpro said:
I’m reading skepticism about how the term is applied, but its very simple in my mind:

The working class is inclusive of all who earn an income based on their capacity to work.
Click to expand...

But then here you parse it it fit a narrative where you pit people on the lower end of the scale to those you are positing there is a common complaint against, the Wall Street elite.
canitpro said:
I think there are factions of both parties that want to improve conditions for the working class, and see better representation of constituents over corporate interests. The problem is the status quo of both parties are abbhorent at the moment, and likely dont actually disagree much behind closed doors. I have always been an advocate of some approximation of the 2nd Bill of Rights to actually reference something from our own history. You can find staple achievements of both parties historically that would currently be labeled radical or fringe and find no modern support because some of our history doesn’t cater to corporate hegemony, wall street, and the sacred altar of colossal wealth accumulation.
Click to expand...
However both groups fit the board definition you first defined. Hogg already touched on this.

Usage of the term “working class” is generally seen in stoking class warfare. Because you can’t really have class ware fare unless you get people to picks sides/classes. This dogma also tends to come from a societal model opposed to our own, it is socialist at its roots.

It isn’t a crime to be rich and successful. Or even very comfortable. It isn’t wrong to use your money to express your views. I’d argue charity fits this bill.

It is wrong to use your riches/resources to work in limiting the rights of others.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hog88
#220
#220
canitpro said:
thats a leap. the government can, in theory, protect individual transactions from theft, fraud, etc., the FDIC protects money when it’s deposited in a bank, the first amendment protects speech.

based on the logic of your second point, I suppose we must use the transitive property for all things to determine rights...? Because an eagle flies it should be regulated by the FAA? Because a swimming pool is a body of water it’s living bacteria should be protected by the US Fish and Wildlife Service
Click to expand...
So it’s ok for the government to limit some members of the “working class” to benefit other members of the “working class”. They get to pick winners or losers.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#221
#221
hog88 said:
Ok then contributing to a campaign or PAC is the same thing, you’re using your money to get your message out so it’s covered under the 1A.

Oh and if you are going to tax a corporations income they have the same rights as a person.
Click to expand...
On the issue of PACs its near impossible to find a working compromise on private money funding politics. I don’t care how much of your own money you spend. But everybody else’s private money either direct or via PAC or party or lobby should be removed.
 
#222
#222
NorthDallas40 said:
Ok found it. Actually missed that one.

So here you define “working class” as anybody earning income. I agree it’s a broad term.


But then here you parse it it fit a narrative where you pit people on the lower end of the scale to those you are positing there is a common complaint against, the Wall Street elite.

However both groups fit the board definition you first defined. Hogg already touched on this.

Usage of the term “working class” is generally seen in stoking class warfare. Because you can’t really have class ware fare unless you get people to picks sides/classes. This dogma also tends to come from a societal model opposed to our own, it is socialist at its roots.

It isn’t a crime to be rich and successful. Or even very comfortable. It isn’t wrong to use your money to express your views. I’d argue charity fits this bill.

It is wrong to use your riches/resources to work in limiting the rights of others.
Click to expand...

you‘re reading into the criticism of Wall Street, etc. in a way that wasn’t intended. I’m criticizing the system, not the people. Similarly, I have nothing against wealthy individuals, per se, just the system.

in a just society, charity would not be necessary - people’s livelihoods and well-being shouldn’t be contingent on someone else’s charitable whims

On the last point - agreed, yes it is wrong to oppress people
 
#223
#223
canitpro said:
you‘re reading into the criticism of Wall Street, etc. in a way that wasn’t intended. I’m criticizing the system, not the people. Similarly, I have nothing against wealthy individuals, per se, just the system.

in a just society, charity would not be necessary - people’s livelihoods and well-being shouldn’t be contingent on someone else’s charitable whims

On the last point - agreed, yes it is wrong to oppress people
Click to expand...
So I’m going to make a leap and guess you like the idea of wealth redistribution and believe everyone has a basic right to earn a wage of an amount to support themselves and their families? And that possibly it is the government’s responsibility to guarantee that right as well as their well being on other things like healthcare?
 
#224
#224
canitpro said:
you‘re reading into the criticism of Wall Street, etc. in a way that wasn’t intended. I’m criticizing the system, not the people. Similarly, I have nothing against wealthy individuals, per se, just the system.

in a just society, charity would not be necessary - people’s livelihoods and well-being shouldn’t be contingent on someone else’s charitable whims

On the last point - agreed, yes it is wrong to oppress people
Click to expand...
Good grief, How many of y'all have burner accounts?
 
  • Like
Reactions: NorthDallas40 and 1972 Grad
#225
#225
canitpro said:
you‘re reading into the criticism of Wall Street, etc. in a way that wasn’t intended. I’m criticizing the system, not the people. Similarly, I have nothing against wealthy individuals, per se, just the system.

in a just society, charity would not be necessary - people’s livelihoods and well-being shouldn’t be contingent on someone else’s charitable whims

On the last point - agreed, yes it is wrong to oppress people
Click to expand...
A just society will never exist because you will always have human nature. Greed. Laziness. Etc. you can’t force people at gunpoint to act the way you want them to
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64 and hog88
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top