Kansas Guv Kelly Kills Kansas Tax Cuts
39 minutes ago
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Subscribe To
Posts
Comments
My Blog List
-
-
Donald Trump’s Day at the Supreme Court45 minutes ago
-
-
-
-
The Supreme Court Is Useless4 hours ago
-
-
2:00PM Water Cooler 4/25/20245 hours ago
-
'Green News Report' - April 25, 20246 hours ago
-
Cartoon: Resign!8 hours ago
-
Nancy Hughes: Fix it, God21 hours ago
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
State of the Union: Will Biden Resonate?1 month ago
-
In Memorium4 months ago
-
Kansas City NFL Draft Aerial Photos (5)11 months ago
-
-
Search4 years ago
-
-
who links to me?
Counter
The Gallery at night
Warning
Summer field
Late Summer Sunset
Chicago, downtown
under a bridge, by the lake
13 comments:
I don't think we should try to stop it--it is a real life version of Bill Engvall's "Here's your sign". You see that, you know who you are dealing with.
There's also the version that adds "Heritage, not hate" that I see fairly often around here. I haven't quite figured out how that particular side of that particular decade represents Ohio heritage...I thought we were on the other side.
I'd be all for these 1st Amendment right except the Confederate flag did--and does--stand for slavery and racism.
No, gotta' go a different way on this one.
MR
Sure the flag stands for slavery and racism, regardless of the "heritage not hate" claims. I'm ambivalent about trying to convince the idiots who fly those flags.
I'm not at all ambivalent about legally allowing them to fly flags representing hate and racism--if the first amendment doesn't apply to obnoxious speech, it is worthless, merely "the right to agree with the authorities".
nonsense.
the First Amendment should support everything--except what is blatantly ugly and outrageously negative and suppressive, like slavery, etc.
I'm all for true freee speech but there must be limits, ultimately.
MR
"nonsense.
the First Amendment should support everything--except what is blatantly ugly and outrageously negative and suppressive, like slavery, etc.
I'm all for true freee speech but there must be limits, ultimately.
MR"
But who decides what is blatantly ugly and outrageously negative? You? me? A Pastor? A priest? A peddler of pornography?
I believe we need this sort of thing to remind others that there still is ugliness about. Better the enemy you know and can see than one that festers away from the light.
Who decides what is blatantly offensive?
"I'm for the second amendment, but it doesn't really mean people can own guns"
"I'm all for freedom of religion, as long as it is a Christian religion like the Founding Fathers...and maybe a few Jews"
"I'm all for the fourteenth amendment, but it doesn't mean that when an illegal has a kid here, that kid is a citizen"
"I'm all for freedom of speech, unless I disagree with that speech too much"
A freedom that is only what others are comfortable with isn't much of a freedom. Freedom of speech has to apply to the most vile and disgusting speech, else it is meaningless. The ACLU fought for the speech rights of Nazis, and they were correct in doing so. The line is where it causes actual harm, not just hurt feelings.
We need to be able to talk about Guantanamo, or abortion, or race, or even talk about re-instituting slavery. It means people get to fly a confederate flag, or a Gadsden flag, or a rainbow flag.
Should neo-cons or even less obnoxious Republicans get to enforce their view of ugly and outrageous, if they gain power?
a) the courts decide, of course
b) I'm only for screening gun owners and registering guns, that's all--not a total gun ban;
c) I'm actually really against virtually all religion but what I would support is what the Foundiing Fathers supported--that is, the free practice of any and all religion so long as it infringes on no one else's rights;
d) I'm all about the ACLU, love their work protecting the Bill of Rights and I support them, even;
e) we can discuss virtually anything, sure, but supporting slavery or the Confederacy is just blatantly stupid. I don't think I need to go take down his flag (for it is most surely a male's flag) but I'm convinced of this guy's ignorance, I can tell you that.
My point, about this flag, is that it is offensive to African-Americans and rightly so.
we can discuss virtually anything, sure, but supporting slavery or the Confederacy is just blatantly stupid.
As long as you don't advocate making stupidity illegal, I don't disagree.
I don't think I need to go take down his flag (for it is most surely a male's flag) but I'm convinced of this guy's ignorance, I can tell you that.
As I originally said, it is the equivalent of a self-imposed "I'm stupid" sign. As long as you aren't also proposing to send an official to make him take it down, maybe we aren't actually in disagreement.
My point, about this flag, is that it is offensive to African-Americans and rightly so.
They have a right to be offended, but I'd suggest that rolling eyes and derisive snickering is a better response. I'm not Black though, so that's only a suggestion. If racism is down to the point where confederate flags are in the top category of offenses, we've won.
I'm curious.
I wonder what, exactly, you're "pining for" if you buy and fly a Confederate Flag.
If you're saying you miss slavery, that's one thing, horrible and, again, ignorant and even stupid as that is.
But if not that, then what, exactly, is it you're saying you miss?
Clearly, I don't get it.
and yes, it seems we're in agreement.
MR
"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it."
--Thomas Jefferson
Translation: If you believe in free speech, then you gotta take the good with the bad, otherwise you are simply debating about what degree of tyranny you think the general populace is willing to accept.
oh, the old fool, out in the country, with his Confederate flag probably isn't hurting anyone. At least I hope not.
But really, this is so empty and not very intelligent, at minimum.
MR
(I didn't think Jefferson's quote needed translation. it's very familiar and it's also straightforward but thanks. and I'm not being sarcastic).
If you want to limit the argument to the places where there is actually disagreement, you might try to make clear the distinction between "There ought to be a law" and "I think that person is a moron".
not once did I say "there ought to be a law".
unfortunately, you can't outlaw stupidity, as we all know.
MR
Post a Comment