Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I see.NothingButTheBlood said:I don't doubt part of their interest in this case is because this group gives Christians a bad name.
MachZer0 said:ACLU Sues for Anti-Gay Group That Pickets at Troops' Burials
I suppose this is an example of how much the Left hates George Bush and the war. So much so that they support Fred Phelps
Jacey said:Hi there, are you the same guy arguing in favor of someone's freedom of speech in regard to expressing her religious views, and now taking the exact opposite stance?
I'm on the right. Did I ever say Phelps shouldn't be allowed to abuse his right to be an idiot? Of course not. I've seen far more examples of people on the left attacking the right's freedom of speech, and it's a rare occasion to see a liberal pull out the Voltaire quote; that's a conservative line, as much as Edmund Burke's famous quote: "All that is required for evil to triumph is for good men to think George W. Bush is the real evil."blueapplepaste said:Pretty much. It's becoming more and more clear that those on the right are not for free speech for all, only for free speech for those who they agree with.
Borealis said:I'm on the right. Did I ever say Phelps shouldn't be allowed to abuse his right to be an idiot? Of course not. I've seen far more examples of people on the left attacking the right's freedom of speech, and it's a rare occasion to see a liberal pull out the Voltaire quote; that's a conservative line, as much as Edmund Burke's famous quote: "All that is required for evil to triumph is for good men to think George W. Bush is the real evil."
Okay, I paraphrased it a wee bit.
The claim that the right is opposed to free speech is ludicrous. The real complaint from liberals is that the right is opposed to freedom of consequences resulting from said free speech. You can say whatever you want; that doesn't mean people aren't going to react to it negatively. Look at the Dixie Chicks. No one said they couldn't say something stupid; they just voted with their pocketbooks and made it clear that they would not support anyone who made personal attacks of that nature on the President. So, following the liberal playbook, they screamed "CENSORSHIP!!!!111!" from every rooftop, as if a law had been passed preventing people from buying Dixie Chicks albums.
Look at the very concept of political correctness: certain things cannot be said because they 'offend' people. You can't say 'retarded,' it's now 'mentally challenged.' You can't say 'handicapped,' it's 'handi-capable' or 'physically challenged.' A 'garbageman' is now a 'sanitation engineer.' Freedom of speech is suppressed because it might offend someone. The same applies in universities, with speech codes springing up all across North America. Suddenly certain groups are protected from 'offense' by punishing people who fail to meet certain speech requirements.
School newspapers that support conservative policies or candidates get stolen and burned, without punishment.
It's not conservatives or the right who are trying to suppress freedom of speech; we're the ones trying to keep it alive.
Look at the very concept of political correctness: certain things cannot be said because they 'offend' people. You can't say 'retarded,' it's now 'mentally challenged.'[//quote]
Those people are pretty far and few between, though, on the left. By contrast, the right will screech and practically faint en masse if one refers to the Iraqi enemy as "insurgents" rather than "terrorists" or "suicide bombers" rather than "homicide bombers."
So the plaintiff in the case will not be Fred Phelps or Westboro Baptist Church but will rather be "Free Speech"?mhatten said:They are not defending him they are defending free speech.
That, of course, excludes valedictorians giving speeches that honor God. In that situation, the ACLU would choose to limit speech, which does indeed reveal an agenda for those who claim the ACLU has no political agendaxMinionX said:"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." -Voltaire
Clear enough?
Can you point me to a post where I took a position on Phelps and his behavior? When it becomes apparent that I did not, direct your comments instead toward the ACLU which is indeed taking the opposite side from the stance they took in the other case?Jacey said:Hi there, are you the same guy arguing in favor of someone's freedom of speech in regard to expressing her religious views, and now taking the exact opposite stance?
MachZer0 said:Can you point me to a post where I took a position on Phelps and his behavior? When it becomes apparent that I did not, direct your comments instead toward the ACLU which is indeed taking the opposite side from the stance they took in the other case?
It's a short thread, and I've made few posts, so that's no excuseElvisFan42 said:This member has disabled Find All Posts.
Maybe if you didn't disable the search feature...
MachZer0 said:It's a short thread, and I've made few posts, so that's no excuse
MachZer0 said:Can you point me to a post where I took a position on Phelps and his behavior? When it becomes apparent that I did not, direct your comments instead toward the ACLU which is indeed taking the opposite side from the stance they took in the other case?
The context of the charge leveled against me was this thread.ElvisFan42 said:You said "Can you point me to a post where I took a position on Phelps and his behavior? " You didn't ask for a post in this thread, sorry. I don't know your position on Phelps, I would have to imagine that like most people, you have no use for him. Maybe you could be nice and clear it up for us by stating your position on Phelps and his congregation.
So, being unable to substantiate your charge of hypocrisy, and unwilling to make the same charge against the ACLU, you elect instead to set up a tent on my front lawn? How odd.Jacey said:Gee I dunno, maybe these are two entirely different issues?
Hey I got a question. Will you PM me your home address? I'd like to set up a tent on your front lawn and tell all your neighbors how wonderful atheism is, complete with sound system and tons of flyers. I know you won't mind.
And they claimed censorship, which was a total crock of something unprintable.blueapplepaste said:You are quite right that with free speech comes responsibility. The Dixie Chicks are a great example. They said what they wanted to and there was a backlash.
And black people can use the 'N' word all they want, but if a white person dares to use it, the PC police come down on them like a ton of bricks.And last I checked someone isn't going to get punished for saying retarded or garbageman; bringing up politcal correctness has nothing to do with free speech. You or anyone else can say retarded and garbageman all they want.
Just one?Hogwash. Give me one example.
They pick and choose the 'freedom of speech' cases they'll fight for. They rarely defend Christians, they twist the freedom of religion part of the First Amendment into unrecognizable shapes. I don't hate the ACLU; I merely see no point to their continued existence.Then why do you hate the ACLU? Seems hypocritical to hate a group who is advocating the very thing you claim to be "trying to keep alive".
burrow_owl said:They aren't insurgents. An insurgency is almost totally an internal affair. Most of the members of Al-Qaeda in Iraq aren't even Iraqis; they're from Jordan, Syria and Iran. Not all, but a lot. If it walks like a terrorist, acts like a terrorist and talks like a terrorist, it's a terrorist, not an insurgent.Look at the very concept of political correctness: certain things cannot be said because they 'offend' people. You can't say 'retarded,' it's now 'mentally challenged.'[//quote]
Those people are pretty far and few between, though, on the left. By contrast, the right will screech and practically faint en masse if one refers to the Iraqi enemy as "insurgents" rather than "terrorists" or "suicide bombers" rather than "homicide bombers."
As for 'suicide bombers,' I don't really care about the word used. I think 'homocide bomber' is a more accurate term, but either one works.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?