Liberals and "Free Speech"

[Surt]

1st off, I'm sorry if this should be in the political forums!
I joined a Liberal forum the other day to be a fly-on-the-wall and see what going on in the other side, and I must say, I can't believe my eyes. Rhetoric and views that I don't believe with aside I am flabbergasted by the fact that they have a room where no conservative views are allowed. Yes, it doesn't matter if you're respectful or not, you will be kicked simply for disagreeing with them. Then they go on to rant about right-wing censorship of the media!:dunno:

The most sickening thing of all is sheer number of outright communists/soviets on the board. I say soviets because most of them have flags of the USSR as their sig lines. While I have never agreed with communism (or even socialism for that matter) I still agree with their right to hold those views. What I dont understand is if they hate this country so much (and from their posts they do) why do they stay here? There is no wall around the US built to keep citizens in, heck, we have our hands full keeping them out!
I guess I'll never understand the other side... end rant

[Dragoon44]

Daniel Flynn has an excellent book that addressees this subject. it is called "Why the left hates America".

[fastsix]

1st off, I'm sorry if this should be in the political forums!
I joined a Liberal forum the other day to be a fly-on-the-wall and see what going on in the other side, and I must say, I can't believe my eyes. Rhetoric and views that I don't believe with aside I am flabbergasted by the fact that they have a room where no conservative views are allowed. Yes, it doesn't matter if you're respectful or not, you will be kicked simply for disagreeing with them. Then they go on to rant about right-wing censorship of the media!:dunno:

The most sickening thing of all is sheer number of outright communists/soviets on the board. I say soviets because most of them have flags of the USSR as their sig lines. While I have never agreed with communism (or even socialism for that matter) I still agree with their right to hold those views. What I dont understand is if they hate this country so much (and from their posts they do) why do they stay here? There is no wall around the US built to keep citizens in, heck, we have our hands full keeping them out!
I guess I'll never understand the other side... end rant

One website does not define all liberals.
Nor does one website define all conservatives.

Know what I mean?

http://online.logcabin.org/

[Andrewsky]

And I'll bet most of them don't even live in New York City. Ann Coulter says the biggest losers in the world are liberals in red states, since the only reason to be liberal is to live in New York City.

[Andrewsky]

One website does not define all liberals.
Nor does one website define all conservatives.

Know what I mean?

http://online.logcabin.org/

Your avatar has been hacked.:supergrin:

[Surt]

Daniel Flynn has an excellent book that addressees this subject. it is called "Why the left hates America".

Got it, good book! I'm just continually surprised i guess...

[EDIT]
Lookie what I found, creepy huh?
http://i229.photobucket.com/albums/ee2/RefuseAndRevolt/AmericanLeft.jpg

[JGrant]

haha, liberal and free speech. My college had no problem allowing certain groups to denounce Bush and Republicans but would not allow conservative speakers because they were too "controversial".

[Dragoon44]

One website does not define all liberals.
Nor does one website define all conservatives.

Know what I mean?

http://online.logcabin.org/

Actually the site he describes sounds more like a leftist site not simply "liberal".

[Daynja]

Just another example of how opinions change back and forth based on the current situation.

[Surt]

Actually the site he describes sounds more like a leftist site not simply "liberal".

I believe that, sadly, it is a Liberal site, that has catered to the Leftists that seem to have flocked there. There are parallels to GlockTalk, and there are honest Liberal-americans. They're just hard to find!

[G30MI]

1st off, I'm sorry if this should be in the political forums!
I joined a Liberal forum the other day to be a fly-on-the-wall and see what going on in the other side, and I must say, I can't believe my eyes. Rhetoric and views that I don't believe with aside I am flabbergasted by the fact that they have a room where no conservative views are allowed. Yes, it doesn't matter if you're respectful or not, you will be kicked simply for disagreeing with them. Then they go on to rant about right-wing censorship of the media

I assume that by "free speech" you're referring to the 1st Amendment to the Constitution. You do realize that the 1st Amendment doesn't apply to a forum on the internet, right?

The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America
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.

I don't see where it says that the owners and/or moderators of that forum can't remove anyone they see fit to remove.

[fastsix]

I believe that, sadly, it is a Liberal site, that has catered to the Leftists that seem to have flocked there.

What's the website?

No need to keep it a secret right? Post the link and let everyone decide for themselves if it's a mainstream liberal site or not.

[RickD]

Socialists of the early 20th century (Sinclair, Wells, Margaret Sanger, Oliver Wendall Holmes, Stalin, George Benard Shaw, Mussolini, Wilson, the original Fabians, et al) considered free speech all well and good as long as it served the purpose of the cause (defined by the movement in any particular nation). The popular phrase of that period was "everything for the State, everything of the State, nothing outside the State."

Having worked with many on the left, I've come to realize that even the garden variety "pro-choice" "anti-war" name your issue Democrat harbor the same suppressionist tendencies. They are this way because their echo chamber convinces them that it's "good for society." Some have described it as a "cult of unity." If you're not united with us, you're one of them.

With the left, freedom of speech allows individuals the privilege of saying more and more about less and less.

One wonders what the "American Protective League" would look like under an Obama administration. It was a goon squad under Woodrow Wilson.

[New]

I assume that by "free speech" you're referring to the 1st Amendment to the Constitution. You do realize that the 1st Amendment doesn't apply to a forum on the internet, right?

.

Oh really? I think you need to expand on this thought of yours.

[skonie]

What's the website?

No need to keep it a secret right? Post the link and let everyone decide for themselves if it's a mainstream liberal site or not.

+1
I'd like to know the site so I can check it out and decide for myself.

[bestseller92]

Skonie has a great avatar.

[GlockFish]

Democratic underground perhaps? Your head will explode after 10 minutes of reading over there. And they are well known to ban opinions they don't like.

[Fumble]

Oh really? I think you need to expand on this thought of yours.The owner/administrator of the forum can certainly censor speech on said forum. The 1st Amendment would only apply if it were the Government stepping in to censor speech on that forum.

[bestseller92]

Any owner or moderator of a private message board can delete any comments or ban any members they choose to. On a perfect board, all viewpoints might be allowed, but on a private board there is no moral, legal or constitutional obligation to do so.

But, having said that, it does put the lie to the liberals' claim to be for free, unfettered speech when they refuse to allow opposing viewpoints on their forums.

[G30MI]

Oh really? I think you need to expand on this thought of yours.

Can you read? The 1st Amendment clearly states that CONGRESS shall make no law infringing on free expression. Show me where it says that I can't tell you to shut the hell up if I don't agree with what you say.

I'm just dying to hear YOUR thoughts on this.

[Trigger_Rush]

Oh really? I think you need to expand on this thought of yours.

What're you, new? Oh wait...

[ElevatedThreat]

Liberals gave lip-service to free speech back when they were in the extreme minority, and when anti-American, anti-capitalist views were still reviled and often greeted with extreme hostility.

But as America has unfortunately become more and more openly Socialist, and the news media become nearly 100% Leftist, "free speech" no longer serves Liberalism.

Hence, for example, the Democrats' congressional drive to prohibit Conservative talk shows from being broadcast on radio, through imposition of the ironically-named "Fairness Doctrine."

The true minority dissent is now anyone who QUESTIONS the validity of extreme Liberalism, and since facts and common sense are so devastating to Leftist ideology, Liberalism can exist only where such dissent is not tolerated.

Modern liberal intolerance for any dissent from Leftist orthodoxy is the intellectual equivalent of sticking their fingers in their ears and going "La-la-la-la-la-la-la, I can't HEAR you...!"

-ET

[Surt]

The website is liberalforum.org for all of you who wish to know, I just didnt want to come in looking like I was trying to advertise the site here.

I'm not saying that the owners/operators of the site have no right to exclude conservative opinions. I am just stating my befuddlement that 1) no other forums that I am a member of has rooms that will get you banned simply for your OPINION 2) these persons who all claim to be advocates of civil rights, logic, reasoning, "the morally right" and the "popular cause" feel the need to have a room where they can all get together and back-slap and high-five free of anybody who will argue with them.

I don't agree with socialism/communism/modern-liberalism, but I will fight to the death for their right to shout their views on top of a mountain or down on a street corner. But the fact that a forum dedicated to politics has a room denying a certain a voice just makes me a little bit ill to think that these people are voting!

[G30MI]

I don't agree with socialism/communism/modern-liberalism, but I will fight to the death for their right to shout their views on top of a mountain or down on a street corner.
But will you also fight to the death for their right to ignore ideas that are contrary to their own? Free speech means more than just the right to express your thoughts. It also means the right to not listen to people for whatever reason you see fit.

I think you're expecting way too much from a political forum.

[RWBlue]

As a moderate, I findit interesting how far the left is left and how far the right is right.

I met someone who agreed the bombers bombing abortion clinics and wanted to put hits on the doctors.

I met someone on the left who wanted to limit the amount of money you make each year and give the "tax" to the poor.

IMHO, there are a lot of radicals out there, but the left's radicals are more action oriented.

[itisbruno]

Your avatar has been hacked.:supergrin:

:rofl:

[jnojr]

If it is important for you to promulgate the idea that 2+2=5, you cannot allow any dissent that points out that 2+2=4. Anyone with a brain will quickly be able to see that 2+2=4, not 5, and your pet project cannot move forward. So, you must ensure that your audience sees nothing but 2+2=5.

This is why liberals are usually allowed to make fools of themselves on conservative forums (at least until they resort to screaming, ad hominem attacks, etc. after every semblance of logic has dissolved), and why conservatives are instantly banned from liberal fora.

[New]

:whistling:

[Brian Lee]

I agree there's a leftist faction that's pretty far from sensible, but I don't think that to disagree with the present actions of the government means that a person "hates" America. Thomas Jefferson said that "dissent is the highest form of patriotism". I don't think Thomas Jefferson hated America. But he LOVED having the right to disagree with those who currently run things.

This is not meant to be interpreted as defending wacko liberal commie opinions. But if it was them (liberal commie types) in control of the government, wouldn't you cherish your right to be a dissenter? And would you want the leftist accusing you of "hating America" because you disagree with their way of running the government?

I'm sure we do have a small percentage of "America haters" out there, but most liberals don't, and we, as conservatives, only make it more difficult for ourselves to educate them when we falsely accuse them of hating their own country.

[MLM]

Liberals and Free-Speech:

You're free to say anything just as long as it agrees with their view.

[G33]

I agree there's a leftist faction that's pretty far from sensible, but I don't think that to disagree with the present actions of the government means that a person "hates" America. Thomas Jefferson said that "dissent is the highest form of patriotism". I don't think Thomas Jefferson hated America. But he LOVED having the right to disagree with those who currently run things.

This is not meant to be interpreted as defending wacko liberal commie opinions. But if it was them (liberal commie types) in control of the government, wouldn't you cherish your right to be a dissenter? And would you want the leftist accusing you of "hating America" because you disagree with their way of running the government?

I'm sure we do have a small percentage of "America haters" out there, but most liberals don't, and we, as conservatives, only make it more difficult for ourselves to educate them when we falsely accuse them of hating their own country.


So true...

They are still pond scum.
:supergrin::supergrin:

[Brian Lee]

So true...

They are still pond scum.
:supergrin::supergrin:

Yes.... Pond Scum with the same rights we have, and must respect, if we want to preserve those rights for ourselves. But still ignorant scum.....

[hardballing]

Red State,

Blue State,

Me State,

You State.

Me? I tend to be kind of down the middle on lots of issues. More of a Libertarian I guess as I get older.

My philosopy is just leave me the hell alone. Other than national defense, roads and mail, that is pretty much all I want from a national government.

With regards to "liberal" or "conservative" sites, there are plenty of morons on both sides of the isle imo. Plenty or ranters and plenty of kool aid drinkers, no matter how stupid the argument.

P.S. The Constitution does not provide you ANY free speech rights regarding the internet, your employer, etc. It only limits what government may do, not private individuals. So if DailyKos wants to do a mental circle jerk while singing the Komitas, more power to em.

Just one mook's opinion.

[jhoagland]

This crap just makes my head hurt. It's real simple. The government should be run just like a house hold. If your out go is more than your income then your up keep will be your down fall. Protect the home and family. Say hi to the folks next door and accross the street. If somebody tries to come in and cause a problem run 'em off. Other than that the inhabitants of the house should do as they want, as long as their chores are done.

[Carrys]

Most liberals aren't monsters. They simply have a rather strange mental defect when it comes to how they process information, IMO. It most always boils down to what one "thinks" vs what one "feels". It's that "facts" vs "feelings" thing they seem to be unable to come to grips with. It would appear that facts are just tools that allow them to arrive at their feelings. Any fact which doesn't support their feelings isn't worth believing. If no fact exist, make one up. It seems believing a false fact is much easier, and much more self serving, than believing one that does not support their feelings. They are not able to grasp information which does not support what they feel. Start winning any argument with a liberal, by using facts and proof, and see how quickly they stop arguing and you are called "racist" or "nazi".


Most liberals IMO, don't ban the free exchange of ideas and opinions because they don't like them, they do it because they can not take the fact that they may be wrong on some issues. They have lived all their lives with the thoughts and "feelings" they have and for them to hear other ideas or thoughts that may prove them wrong is too much for them to take.

No one likes to be proved wrong, we can all understand that. But those that simply continue to argue their point, even after they are shown facts and evidence that refute their views, do so because to be shown to be wrong leaves them with nowhere to go (as far as ideas go). They are unable to accept that the way they have lived and the ideas they have fought for all their lives may, perhaps, need to be rethought. It makes them feel as if they have no "control" and things are "unsteady". To think one has knowledge and understanding that others don't, places that one on a "superior" plain. It allows them to believe that they, and the few others like them, are blessed with the ability to rule over the rest of us. They honestly think that their way is the only "right" way.

They appear to believe that the rest of us must be lead to where they are, by any means. To them, the end justifies any means necessary to achieve that goal. Lying, cheating, fraud, bribery and perhaps even killing are all deeds that need to be done, if it will lead us and the Country to where they believe it should be. After all, they are only doing those things "for the greater good".

However, it has been my experience they engage in that type of behavior for one reason only when looked at closely, it allows them to justify to themselves what they have been thinking/feeling all their lives. "Winning" the election (any election) just seems to cement that view. Waaa-Hooo, they were right all along!

So perhaps you can see what they have to lose, as they believe it. Under these conditions I don't believe they are being just pig-headed when they argue with facts and numbers that they fabricate out of thin air, they can't help themselves. Any information they read or hear, as long as it supports what they believe, is taken as fact. They are simply unable to see it any other way. Because if they did, they might have to admit that they were wrong about a certain subject. That would lead to them having to reexamine what they "know" or perhaps just how much they "understand" any given point of view. They can not do it.


See my sig line for one example.

[Surt]

I have been trawling through the site more and more. It's like a car wreck, sometimes you can't help but look. I never knew that the left refers to the conservative movement as "sheeple" just as us pro-gunners refer to the unarmed people! It's just amazing and bizarre. I guess the saddest thing is the complete lack of maturity on the site. 90% of the people on that forum are far-left loons. I'm not saying that about liberals, these people are certified communists and socialists who in all reality would be happier living in China or Russia. And most of the arguments quickly boil down to who's mom slept with the most Jewish men in the ghetto. Sad.:upeyes:

I put 99% of the blame for the site's shortcoming on bad/absent moderators.

[1811guy2]

Don't you all already know - the only free speech is liberal speech. Liberal speech is also immune from consequences.

[SMSTRICK]

1st off, I'm sorry if this should be in the political forums!
I joined a Liberal forum the other day to be a fly-on-the-wall and see what going on in the other side, and I must say, I can't believe my eyes. Rhetoric and views that I don't believe with aside I am flabbergasted by the fact that they have a room where no conservative views are allowed. Yes, it doesn't matter if you're respectful or not, you will be kicked simply for disagreeing with them. Then they go on to rant about right-wing censorship of the media!:dunno:

The most sickening thing of all is sheer number of outright communists/soviets on the board. I say soviets because most of them have flags of the USSR as their sig lines. While I have never agreed with communism (or even socialism for that matter) I still agree with their right to hold those views. What I dont understand is if they hate this country so much (and from their posts they do) why do they stay here? There is no wall around the US built to keep citizens in, heck, we have our hands full keeping them out!
I guess I'll never understand the other side... end rant

If conservative views were to be allowed on the forum,....then there must be some level of logic which accompanies it. This is why conservative views are not welcome. Left wing liberals run on emotion rather than logic . They cannot debate logic with emotion , therefore logic is not welcome.

[series1811]

One website does not define all liberals.
Nor does one website define all conservatives.

Know what I mean?

http://online.logcabin.org/

Maybe you can answer this question for us, since you seem to be one of them (we have all been using sohaltang as the ultimate example of this).

How do you guys, who don't seem to care a hoot in the world about Glocks, guns, shooting, and hunting, end up here, and then seem shocked (SHOCKED!) to find that it is populated by conservatives?

If I went to PETA board, or a pro gun control board, I would kind of expect to find it full of liberals. But since those aren't things I care about, I don't go to those boards anyway.

So, we always wonder, how do you guys even find Glocktalk, much less decide to log on, (seeing how most of you don't seem to even be too sure what a Glock is, much less owning one)?

[fastsix]

Maybe you can answer this question for us, since you seem to be one of them (we have all been using sohaltang as the ultimate example of this).

How do you guys, who don't seem to care a hoot in the world about Glocks, guns, shooting, and hunting, end up here, and then seem shocked (SHOCKED!) to find that it is populated by conservatives?

If I went to PETA board, or a pro gun control board, I would kind of expect to find it full of liberals. But since those aren't things I care about, I don't go to those boards anyway.

So, we always wonder, how do you guys even find Glocktalk, much less decide to log on, (seeing how most of you don't seem to even be too sure what a Glock is, much less owning one)?

The problem you're having is you're trying to put people into nice, tidy, boxes labeled conservative and liberals, but the reality is people don't always fit in those boxes.

These are the the guns I currently own - a G19 and a Walther PPS.

http://www.fastsix.com/walther1.jpg

I've got a bucket load full of extra mags, accessories, holsters, books etc. many of which I found out about from reading Glocktalk, as well as other gun related sites. I've got about two thousand rounds (WWB and Hornady XTP) through the Glock, and several hundred rounds through the PPS (it's only a few months old). I've shot more guns than I can remember and it's only a matter of time before I add a shotgun (Remington 870 or and AR-15 to those two. I suspect that'll be all the guns I need, although not necessarily all the guns I want.

So I think that answers your question as to why I came to Glocktalk. I came here for the same reason most everybody else originally did - to learn about my Glock, guns, and shooting in general. It's a very informative site.

That said, I'm still a liberal in many ways.

I'm pro choice.
I have no problem with gays getting married.
I think Bush has been bad for our country.
I think global warming is a problem.
I believe in protecting the environment.
I think the war in Iraq was started with good intentions, but has proved to be a waste of our time, resources, and soldier's lives.
I want the world to like the USA, not fear and hate us.
I think Palin would be a horrible president.
etc. etc. etc.

On the other hand.


I don't think McCain would be a bad president...if he'd be McCain and not some puppet of the right wing.
I'm for the death penalty.
I think illegal immigration is a huge problem that has to be stopped.
I don't agree with giving handouts to anyone with a pulse.
I think we need less government, not more.
I don't like the crazies on the far left. I don't like the crazies on the far right.
(but I'd rather hang out with a dirty hippie than an evangelical nut job)
etc. etc. etc.

Sorry that I don't fit in your narrow definition of liberal or conservative. Guns don't define me, or my politics. I avoid the Politics board, but politics unfortunately doesn't avoid the General Non-Glocking board. So when I see a post filled with lies, half truths, group think, or hypocrisy, I speak up - just like I suspect you would. Don't want to talk politics with me, then don't post politics on General Non-Glocking. Those posts don't belong here. I've never started one here, but I won't avoid them if someone else does.

If you really want to label me, Libertarian probably is the closest fit, but these days the GOP has turned politics into a fight over social issues, and that being the case I'm almost always going to come down on the side of the liberals.

[mitchshrader]

the pigeonholing 'Leftist Progressives' as liberals merely proves you don't know what the word means.

Liberal means wants maximum liberty by policy.

That isn't any significant fraction of the Democratic leadership..

claiming the DU is a bastion of liberalism is mindbogglingly inaccurate.

it's about like calling Bush a conservative..

[series1811]

That still doesn't explain why you seem shocked to find conservatives here, or why you seem to think you can talk us into seeing things the way you do.

There may be some undecided voters out there, but I don't think you are gong to run into many on a gun board.

[mitchshrader]

Ron Paul has the most liberal positions of any candidate I've researched..

he basically doesn't want as much government as we have.

find some more of that and you'll have found more liberals..

as for attempting to sway anyone's vote, if they vote against Obama I'll call it a win. ANY rationalization is acceptable compared to voting FOR him..

but Obama darn sure ain't liberal.

He's a socialist thief in the pattern of GWB, only he has a slightly different set of backers..

[1811guy2]

The problem you're having is you're trying to put people into nice, tidy, boxes labeled conservative and liberals, but the reality is people don't always fit in those boxes.

These are the the guns I currently own - a G19 and a Walther PPS.

http://www.fastsix.com/walther1.jpg

I've got a bucket load full of extra mags, accessories, holsters, books etc. many of which I found out about from reading Glocktalk, as well as other gun related sites. I've got about two thousand rounds (WWB and Hornady XTP) through the Glock, and several hundred rounds through the PPS (it's only a few months old). I've shot more guns than I can remember and it's only a matter of time before I add a shotgun (Remington 870 or and AR-15 to those two. I suspect that'll be all the guns I need, although not necessarily all the guns I want.

So I think that answers your question as to why I came to Glocktalk. I came here for the same reason most everybody else originally did - to learn about my Glock, guns, and shooting in general. It's a very informative site.

That said, I'm still a liberal in many ways.

I'm pro choice.
I have no problem with gays getting married.
I think Bush has been bad for our country.
I think global warming is a problem.
I believe in protecting the environment.
I think the war in Iraq was started with good intentions, but has proved to be a waste of our time, resources, and soldier's lives.
I want the world to like the USA, not fear and hate us.
I think Palin would be a horrible president.
etc. etc. etc.

On the other hand.


I don't think McCain would be a bad president...if he'd be McCain and not some puppet of the right wing.
I'm for the death penalty.
I think illegal immigration is a huge problem that has to be stopped.
I don't agree with giving handouts to anyone with a pulse.
I think we need less government, not more.
I don't like the crazies on the far left. I don't like the crazies on the far right.
(but I'd rather hang out with a dirty hippie than an evangelical nut job)
etc. etc. etc.

Sorry that I don't fit in your narrow definition of liberal or conservative. Guns don't define me, or my politics. I avoid the Politics board, but politics unfortunately doesn't avoid the General Non-Glocking board. So when I see a post filled with lies, half truths, group think, or hypocrisy, I speak up - just like I suspect you would. Don't want to talk politics with me, then don't post politics on General Non-Glocking. Those posts don't belong here. I've never started one here, but I won't avoid them if someone else does.

If you really want to label me, Libertarian probably is the closest fit, but these days the GOP has turned politics into a fight over social issues, and that being the case I'm almost always going to come down on the side of the liberals.

I can certainly appreciate that you enjoy your second amendment rights. Good on you. I am having a hard time reconciling why you would support a candidate who is more inclined to strip you of those rights if elected. Perhaps you can help us out on that one, I would sincerely like to know.

[Marine8541]

As a moderate, I findit interesting how far the left is left and how far the right is right.

.



I agree and I fear it’s only going to get worse because so many Americans are truly apathetic. They love to complain but they’ll never take action that makes a difference.

[crazymoose]

Socialists of the early 20th century (Sinclair, Wells, Margaret Sanger, Oliver Wendall Holmes, Stalin, George Benard Shaw, Mussolini, Wilson, the original Fabians, et al) considered free speech all well and good as long as it served the purpose of the cause (defined by the movement in any particular nation). The popular phrase of that period was "everything for the State, everything of the State, nothing outside the State."

Abraham Lincoln was of this opinion, as well.

[Soujurn]

I assume that by "free speech" you're referring to the 1st Amendment to the Constitution. You do realize that the 1st Amendment doesn't apply to a forum on the internet, right?

The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America
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.

I don't see where it says that the owners and/or moderators of that forum can't remove anyone they see fit to remove.

You are correct of course, but, the notion of free speech begins with the 1st amendment, but should be honored everywhere people are intellectually honest.
They shouldn't hide behind such ideas that if they don't like what you have to say, get out since it's my site. As long as they keep their speech PG, anyway.

[mitchshrader]

@Marine8541


the price of demanding redress of grievances is high enough that there must be at least (approx) 1/3 of the citizenry deeply and immediately committed to regaining political control of their government.

i base my position on the fact that's about the fraction who fought for our freedom in the first place..

very rough estimate after this much time, but I have heard it mentioned by those who seemed informed and to whom I gave credence..

that about 1/3 were neutral and practiced avoidance of conflict.. about 1/3 supported the King, and about 1/3 supported independance. The reason the 1/3 for independance won, is they were more willing to kill and die, both as necessary.. than their opponents.

I have no reason to think the essence of human nature has changed in the last couple hundred years. I think for there to be a popular uprising against tyranny, (of any sort, to include non violent and slow motion), the tyranny must affect about a third of the populace in absolutely insupportable ways, and that populace must KNOW it, .. the rest is planning, logistics, strategy, tactics.

I am very pleased by the precedent, the 'practice swing' if you don't mind the term, that Ron Pauls campaign has been. It created relationships of concern.. people who cared enough to do SOMETHING. In my part of the country there's a saying..

I'm gonna do SOMETHING, even if it's wrong.

In my neutral (so far, if anti-Obama is acceptably neutral) position concerning informal and disruptive political action, meaning I'm in no rush towards conflict and chaos..

I'll say if the economy gets bad enough you might just get your one third..

got a hundred million friends?

[ElevatedThreat]

I can certainly appreciate that you enjoy your second amendment rights. Good on you. I am having a hard time reconciling why you would support a candidate who is more inclined to strip you of those rights if elected. Perhaps you can help us out on that one, I would sincerely like to know.

That was my question, too.

How can you have as an avatar on gun-owners' board the "presidential seal" of a guy who is an avowed Marxist redistributionist, and who has said he will ban all gun ownership if he can get the votes to do so?

(OK, technically he said "You don't have to worry about my banning your guns because I could never get Congress to go along, so that's no reason not to vote for me." -- but to me, it's the exact same thing.)

-ET

[Marine8541]

@Marine8541


the price of demanding redress of grievances is high enough that there must be at least (approx) 1/3 of the citizenry deeply and immediately committed to regaining political control of their government.




I’d settle 1/100th participation and I’m being totally serious. Hell my schools district is picking a new calendar and new books for the next two years and eight parents out of 20,000 have showed up at both meetings. I could cite other examples but I’m sure I’m preaching to mostly empty pews. If it truly takes a third to affect real change then it may be time to just pack up the tents and wait it out…

[Wolfe]

I wish I could say I was surprised that the guy defending liberals with an Obama sign was from Seattle, but alas I cannot.

[mike7465]

The only way to make a political forum for libs work is to kill any sign of conservatives. Conservatives act as a ray of sunshine. They bring light and hope to a place filled with darkness and hate.

[Kedyn]

He's a socialist thief in the pattern of GWB, only he has a slightly different set of backers..

Interesting. Could you please elaborate more on this? I don't think I see the whole picture.

[Kedyn]

The website is liberalforum.org for all of you who wish to know, I just didnt want to come in looking like I was trying to advertise the site here.

I'm not saying that the owners/operators of the site have no right to exclude conservative opinions. I am just stating my befuddlement that 1) no other forums that I am a member of has rooms that will get you banned simply for your OPINION 2) these persons who all claim to be advocates of civil rights, logic, reasoning, "the morally right" and the "popular cause" feel the need to have a room where they can all get together and back-slap and high-five free of anybody who will argue with them.

I don't agree with socialism/communism/modern-liberalism, but I will fight to the death for their right to shout their views on top of a mountain or down on a street corner. But the fact that a forum dedicated to politics has a room denying a certain a voice just makes me a little bit ill to think that these people are voting!

It's easier to cling to your beliefs if you surround yourself with those who feel the same way. Liberal or Conservative, both sides do it.

[fastsix]

I can certainly appreciate that you enjoy your second amendment rights. Good on you. I am having a hard time reconciling why you would support a candidate who is more inclined to strip you of those rights if elected. Perhaps you can help us out on that one, I would sincerely like to know.

Guns don't define my politics.

I'm not going to vote for someone who I disagree with on the vast majority of their positions simply because I agree with them on one position. And that goes for any single issue - agreement on a single issue is not reason enough to vote for any candidate. Like I said, McCain isn't that bad, I might have considered voting for him, but with Palin on his ticket - not a chance.

[RWBlue]

Guns don't define my politics.

I'm not going to vote for someone who I disagree with on the vast majority of their positions simply because I agree with them on one position. And that goes for any single issue - agreement on a single issue is not reason enough to vote for any candidate. Like I said, McCain isn't that bad, I might have considered voting for him, but with Palin on his ticket - not a chance.

Funny, how things work.
I would not have voted for McCain, but with a McCain/Palin ticket, I will.

:wavey:

Then again, I am willing to seperate out some certain right winged issues that stands for, but will not get acted on.

[1811guy2]

Guns don't define my politics.

I'm not going to vote for someone who I disagree with on the vast majority of their positions simply because I agree with them on one position. And that goes for any single issue - agreement on a single issue is not reason enough to vote for any candidate. Like I said, McCain isn't that bad, I might have considered voting for him, but with Palin on his ticket - not a chance.

If you are willing to dismiss one right to support a politician, that shows me where your priorities lie. I would not expect alot of empathy from others on this forum. I would not define the people here as conservative either. Pragmatic, realist and independent are adjectives that come to mind. Gun ownership cannot be a casual and fortuitous circumstance, any more than freedom of speech or our other rights are.

[MooseJaw]

"If you are 20 and are not a Liberal,
you have no heart. If you are 40 and are not
a Conservative, you have no brain."
-Sir Winston Churchill-

[fastsix]

If you are willing to dismiss one right to support a politician, that shows me where your priorities lie. I would not expect alot of empathy from others on this forum. I would not define the people here as conservative either. Pragmatic, realist and independent are adjectives that come to mind. Gun ownership cannot be a casual and fortuitous circumstance, any more than freedom of speech or our other rights are.

Both the 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th, and 1st amendments are taking a beating under Bush, and McSame seems hell bent on continuing it. So if you're okay with that as long as the 2nd isn't touched, then I guess it shows me where your priorities are.

[1811guy2]

Both the 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th, and 1st amendments are taking a beating under Bush, and McSame seems hell bent on continuing it. So if you're okay with that as long as the 2nd isn't touched, then I guess it shows me where your priorities are.

You are correct, which is why I despise Bush as a president, and many others do here as well. You assume that because I own guns I am automatically a Bush supporter. That is the problem with liberals, they like to define everyone who disagrees with them in a nice tidy boxed up paradigm. Perhaps my gun ownership and practice of my religion is a result of my frustration with politics, no?

[series1811]

Guns don't define my politics.

I'm not going to vote for someone who I disagree with on the vast majority of their positions simply because I agree with them on one position. And that goes for any single issue - agreement on a single issue is not reason enough to vote for any candidate. Like I said, McCain isn't that bad, I might have considered voting for him, but with Palin on his ticket - not a chance.

Palin is what got me interested in the election again. I guess I see the humor and irony in a Chicago machine appointed politician attacking a woman who came up through the ranks on her own initiative, as lacking in the right stuff to be President or Vice-President (Although I acknowledge that not all will see that).

What you (and Obama, too, apparently) doesn't realize, is that Palin is about the closest thing to ever come out in a presidential election in a long time, to being a normal American (no rich wife, no political machine membership, no lifetime career as a politician, no huge house or houses all over the country, just a normal working mom with a normal family), and when we hear you, or him, make fun of, or disparage her, we know who you are really talking about.

That's the reason you get so much grief here, and so much love on DU. For the most part (at least the vast majority, here) we're like her, and you and the guys on DU, aren't.

[The Oracle]

I assume that by "free speech" you're referring to the 1st Amendment to the Constitution. You do realize that the 1st Amendment doesn't apply to a forum on the internet, right?

The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America
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.

I don't see where it says that the owners and/or moderators of that forum can't remove anyone they see fit to remove.




...The First Amendment could easily apply to speech on an internet forum if there was government action infringing on the rights in question,

...which there does NOT seem to be in this case


.

[The Oracle]

...I don't see where it says that the owners and/or moderators of that forum can't remove anyone they see fit to remove.



...the last part of your post, ...(i.e. the above statement) deals with a particular forum, not the applicability of The First Amendment to internet forums in general,


...big difference


.