The Value of Free Speech

[Foxfyre]

. . . But it isn't the surveillance itself that I think TK was addressing, but the fact that the Chinese government, for one example, is using the surveillance to identify and punish those who do not share the national goals, who criticize the existing government, who express thoughts unacceptable to the Chinese government. It is to crush the free exchange of non-subversive information between citizens.

It is the Chinese version of the political correctness police and enforcement of political correctness.

I think the OP uses this to illustrate that the U.S.A. could so easily head down that same path and we should be ever vigilant to defend our unalienable right to hold our opinions, convictions, beliefs, and points of view with impunity.

Well, I took the post to be sort of a bait and switch. TK equating the right of privacy (which as others discussed is not really implicated in domestic survellience) but which TK neveless finds infringed, and then at least insinuating is being used to suppress speech, which it is not.

I fixed the screwed up coding in your post that occurred when you chose to quote only a portion of my post.

At USMB, a discussion on free speech principles will almost always morph into at least touching on privacy issues, but the OP did not in any way address a right to privacy. It focused exclusively on suppression of free speech and how that is being done.

And in the interest of free speech, I think it juvenile and dumb to attack TK instead of discussing the topic. Don't you? He gave us an interesting and thought provoking topic to discuss. And I have been focusing on the topic, not TK. If that's okay with everybody?

 

[TemplarKormac]

Let’s review the failed premise of the OP:



In the United States the right to free speech is valued, unlike China, consequently it’s ridiculous to compare the two, it is in no way “getting to that point here…”

The OP goes on to confuse the First and Fourth Amendments, where the former concerns free expression and the latter concerns privacy and search and seizure rights in the context of the surveillance programs.

The OP is engaging in demagoguery and commits a slippery slope fallacy.

Last, the OP exhibits his ignorance of Fourth Amendment jurisprudence and its fundamental doctrine concerning a reasonable expectation of privacy, where the surveillance programs are both legal and Constitutional. It is settled and accepted case law that there is no expectation of privacy when one voluntarily provides personal information to a private third party, such as a wireless company or ISP. See: United States v. Miller, 425 U.S. 435 (1976) and Smith v. Maryland (1979). And earlier this year the Supreme Court held in Clapper v. Amnesty International that one has no standing to sue the Federal government concerning the surveillance programs because the programs ‘might’ result in a 4th Amendment privacy rights violation.

All true, but Clapper is pretty cynical. You can't sue to find out if you're being watched unless you can first show you're being watched. However, having been down this concept before, there are people who really think they have an expectation of privacy about where their cell phone is and what ISP's are contacted via the phone. Their beliefs may be honest, but they are fancifal, in that they are based on what they thing internet/cell phone providers SHOULD do instead of what industry practices ARE in reality.

Okay, here's TK's OP again. I'll comment on what I believe his intent was with this OP and will trust him to correct me if I misinterpreted his intent.

If you are an American, this is one of the most valuable rights afforded to you a citizen of the United States. Freedom of speech. It has been throughout history tested and tried, but it stood the test of time. People say, "My government infringes on my right to freedom of speech!" well, I would count my blessings if I were you. China does not value that right, and will without hesitation take it from you. It is getting to that point here, with the NSA watching what you do on the internet and who you call on the phone. Our freedom of speech is now in danger, in China it's gone. A chilling reminder of our future if we allow it to happen.

BEIJING—A forceful campaign of intimidation against China's most influential Internet users has cast a chill over public debate in the country and called into question the long-term viability of its most vibrant social-media platform.

In an offensive that some critics have likened to the political purges of the Mao era, Beijing has recently detained or interrogated several high-profile social-media figures, issued warnings to others to watch what they say and expanded criminal laws to make it easier to prosecute people for their online activity—all part of what one top propaganda official described on Tuesday as "the purification of the online environment."

China Intensifies Social-Media Crackdown - WSJ.com

I took the emphasis of the OP to not be objection to normal or necessary surveillance of the public sector. Our country has a long history of monitoring overseas telephone communications, opening mail bound for other countries, most especially during wartime, and that would naturally include other forms of communication in these modern times with much expanded technology. The public surveillance, among other things, is in the interest of national security and necessary law enforcement that benefits all.

Cell phone and e-mail monitoring, given the greatly expanded dangers in the war on terrorism, is problematic on several levels, both pro and con, and it needs its own discussion, so let's set that aside for now.

But it isn't the surveillance itself that I think TK was addressing, but the fact that the Chinese government, for one example, is using the surveillance to identify and punish those who do not share the national goals, who criticize the existing government, who express thoughts unacceptable to the Chinese government. It is to crush the free exchange of non-subversive information between citizens.

It is the Chinese version of the political correctness police and enforcement of political correctness.

I think the OP uses this to illustrate that the U.S.A. could so easily head down that same path and we should be ever vigilant to defend our unalienable right to hold our opinions, convictions, beliefs, and points of view with impunity.

You pretty much nailed it on the head Fox. You never cease to amaze me.

 

[TemplarKormac]

. . . But it isn't the surveillance itself that I think TK was addressing, but the fact that the Chinese government, for one example, is using the surveillance to identify and punish those who do not share the national goals, who criticize the existing government, who express thoughts unacceptable to the Chinese government. It is to crush the free exchange of non-subversive information between citizens.

It is the Chinese version of the political correctness police and enforcement of political correctness.

I think the OP uses this to illustrate that the U.S.A. could so easily head down that same path and we should be ever vigilant to defend our unalienable right to hold our opinions, convictions, beliefs, and points of view with impunity.

Well, I took the post to be sort of a bait and switch. TK equating the right of privacy (which as others discussed is not really implicated in domestic survellience) but which TK neveless finds infringed, and then at least insinuating is being used to suppress speech, which it is not.

I fixed the screwed up coding in your post that occurred when you chose to quote only a portion of my post.

At USMB, a discussion on free speech principles will almost always morph into at least touching on privacy issues, but the OP did not in any way address a right to privacy. It focused exclusively on suppression of free speech and how that is being done.

And in the interest of free speech, I think it juvenile and dumb to attack TK instead of discussing the topic. Don't you? He gave us an interesting and thought provoking topic to discuss. And I have been focusing on the topic, not TK. If that's okay with everybody?

Well, when I present something that proves to be unassailable to a liberal, they will always attack my character instead of debating the OP. I have grown to expect such behavior from those who have little else to argue with.

 

[TemplarKormac]

If you are an American, this is one of the most valuable rights afforded to you a citizen of the United States. Freedom of speech. It has been throughout history tested and tried, but it stood the test of time. People say, "My government infringes on my right to freedom of speech!" well, I would count my blessings if I were you. China does not value that right, and will without hesitation take it from you. It is getting to that point here, with the NSA watching what you do on the internet and who you call on the phone. Our freedom of speech is now in danger, in China it's gone. A chilling reminder of our future if we allow it to happen.

BEIJING—A forceful campaign of intimidation against China's most influential Internet users has cast a chill over public debate in the country and called into question the long-term viability of its most vibrant social-media platform.

In an offensive that some critics have likened to the political purges of the Mao era, Beijing has recently detained or interrogated several high-profile social-media figures, issued warnings to others to watch what they say and expanded criminal laws to make it easier to prosecute people for their online activity—all part of what one top propaganda official described on Tuesday as "the purification of the online environment."

China Intensifies Social-Media Crackdown - WSJ.com

This if funny coming from Tampon Crammer. The one who tattles on posters he doesn't agree with or who offend him. This dude is about the biggest cry babe hers and most willing to have any opposing view point deleted. What a fag.

Interesting. Do you have anything meaningful to contribute?

 

[bendog]

Foxfyre, I don't think I 'attacked" TK, though he certainly attacks others. I don't think "attack" applies to asserting he mixes and matches what he THINKS the fourth amend should protect, and then asserts govt can use that to suppress free speech. In fact, Imo that's dangerous. Neither the FISA courts, nor the politicans advised of what the NSA is up to, have given any indication that that is to be tolerated.

Rather, what the facts seem to show, is the govt is using survellience that supposedly is to only be aimed at terrorism to prosecute other crimes. I find that very concerning.

And the reason I chose to quote only a portion of youir post is that imo it was the only portion I comment upon. Moreover, you chose to ignore what was the main pt of my post about TK making no distinction between the 1st and 4th, which was a respone to another poster noting the same:

All true, but Clapper is pretty cynical. You can't sue to find out if you're being watched unless you can first show you're being watched. However, having been down this concept before, there are people who really think they have an expectation of privacy about where their cell phone is and what ISP's are contacted via the phone. Their beliefs may be honest, but they are fancifal, in that they are based on what they thing internet/cell phone providers SHOULD do instead of what industry practices ARE in reality

 

[thereisnospoon]

Thats why I said we have a difference of opinion. I do believe in punishing people what they say. Words have power. As an elected official or business person you shouldn't be supporting or advocating a racist position. You deserve to lose your livelihood and the faster the better.

Which is exactly why I said you would dismantle the First Amendment (and therefore the purpose of the entire Constitution) in a heartbeat. The Founders risked their families, their lives, their entire fortunes to give us a Constitution that prohibits the government from punishing people for what they say, think, read, or write short of inciting to riot or depriving others of their unalienable rights. It made absolutely no distinction between the various states, no distinction between private citizens and politicians, no distinction between political parties, and no distinction between people holding polar opposite views.

Thugs bullies, wingnuts, and PC extremists who would ignore that principle and would exert their will to control the words, thoughts, etc. of those they disapprove of or with whom they disagree are not only thugs, bullies, wingnuts, and PC extremists, but they are evil.

Maybe you are mistaking my use of the word punishment. I don't mean jail time or making it illegal. I mean if you cant craft a comment/opinion that unites and betters the population you deserve all the consequences you invite by advocating a racist and divisive one.

Punish...To place sanctions against.
Incarceration is not the only type of punishment.
Being reprimanded or fired from one's job is another form of punishment.
Being shunned in the community is another.
Any type of sanction is punishment.
So once again, do you require music for your tap dancing?

 

[TemplarKormac]

Let’s review the failed premise of the OP:

China does not value that right, and will without hesitation take it from you. It is getting to that point here, with the NSA watching what you do on the internet and who you call on the phone. Our freedom of speech is now in danger, in China it's gone.

In the United States the right to free speech is valued, unlike China, consequently it’s ridiculous to compare the two, it is in no way “getting to that point here…”

The OP goes on to confuse the First and Fourth Amendments, where the former concerns free expression and the latter concerns privacy and search and seizure rights in the context of the surveillance programs.

The OP is engaging in demagoguery and commits a slippery slope fallacy.

Last, the OP exhibits his ignorance of Fourth Amendment jurisprudence and its fundamental doctrine concerning a reasonable expectation of privacy, where the surveillance programs are both legal and Constitutional. It is settled and accepted case law that there is no expectation of privacy when one voluntarily provides personal information to a private third party, such as a wireless company or ISP. See: United States v. Miller, 425 U.S. 435 (1976) and Smith v. Maryland (1979). And earlier this year the Supreme Court held in Clapper v. Amnesty International that one has no standing to sue the Federal government concerning the surveillance programs because the programs ‘might’ result in a 4th Amendment privacy rights violation.

Ahh, I never caught this post, and I have a simple counter. Although this has zero to do with my OP:

What about the FISA court is legal? What about PRISM? What about procuring the phone records of almost every living American is legal?

As far as I know, according to the 4th Amendment you are required by law to have a warrant before accessing my personal information. What you failed to consider that I never voluntarily provided my information to anyone. The ISP and the Phone provider took it in good faith, with a promise that it would not be shared with anyone. That, my good man, is an expectation of privacy. Therefore, the government forced the ISP and Phone Provider to give out information it would have otherwise not given out.

In US v Miller 425 U.S 425 (1976) the man bringing the case had been convicted of multiple federal offenses, he tried to suppress checks and microfilms from being submitted as evidence in the trial under the Bank Secrecy Act of 1970. However these things were business records of the bank, and no longer his private papers. This nullified any 4th Amendment concerns. The court upheld the subpoena of those materials.

The difference here between Miller and I, is that unlike Mr. Miller, I did not freely submit anything to the Government. Only to my ISP or Phone Provider. This information was taken without my prior knowledge; so I have every right to sue them under the 4th Amendment.

In Smith v. Maryland (1979), Smith had no reasonable expectation of privacy because it was a given fact the customers knew that the phone numbers they dialed were being directly conveyed to the Phone Provider via the pen register in question.

The critical difference here, is that not only do I only want my information to stay with my phone company and ISP, I expect it to stay with them and not be given out to other parties. Therefore when the government forcefully procures these records, my expectation of privacy has been violated. And by this premise, I can sue under the 4th Amendment.

Clapper v. Amnesty International 568 U.S. ___ (2013) was ruled in favor of the government surveillance program because the claims brought against it were based on speculation, not on a basis of actual fact of having happened to the plaintiff. However:

Before the process Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli Jr. denied that a ruling in the U.S. governments favor would immunize the surveillance program from constitutional challenges. “That contention is misplaced,” Verrilli wrote in a brier. “Others may be able to establish standing even if respondents cannot. As respondents recognize, the government must provide advance notice of its intent to use information obtained or derived from” the surveillance authorized by the 2008 law “against a person in judicial or administrative proceedings and that person may challenge the underlying surveillance.”

and that

The USCC then stated in its ruling: “If the government intends to use or disclose information obtained or derived from” surveillance authorized by the 2008 law “in judicial or administrative proceedings, it must provide advance notice of its intent, and the affected person may challenge the lawfulness of the acquisition.”

But here is the case that trumps them all:

In Katz v. United States 389 U.S. 347 (1967), the Court’s ruling refined previous interpretations of the unreasonable search and seizure clause of the Fourth Amendment to count immaterial intrusion with technology as a search, overruling Olmstead v. United States and Goldman v. United States. Katz also extended Fourth Amendment protection to all areas where a person has a "reasonable expectation of privacy".

While I would have no case if I were suing my Phone provider or ISP under Katz, I would have a reasonable expectation that such information would not be given to anyone else, including the government.

 

[Foxfyre]

Foxfyre, I don't think I 'attacked" TK, though he certainly attacks others. I don't think "attack" applies to asserting he mixes and matches what he THINKS the fourth amend should protect, and then asserts govt can use that to suppress free speech. In fact, Imo that's dangerous. Neither the FISA courts, nor the politicans advised of what the NSA is up to, have given any indication that that is to be tolerated.

Rather, what the facts seem to show, is the govt is using survellience that supposedly is to only be aimed at terrorism to prosecute other crimes. I find that very concerning.

And the reason I chose to quote only a portion of youir post is that imo it was the only portion I comment upon. Moreover, you chose to ignore what was the main pt of my post about TK making no distinction between the 1st and 4th, which was a respone to another poster noting the same:

All true, but Clapper is pretty cynical. You can't sue to find out if you're being watched unless you can first show you're being watched. However, having been down this concept before, there are people who really think they have an expectation of privacy about where their cell phone is and what ISP's are contacted via the phone. Their beliefs may be honest, but they are fancifal, in that they are based on what they thing internet/cell phone providers SHOULD do instead of what industry practices ARE in reality

If TK chose to veer away from his own topic, well ya'll can deal with that or he can defend hmself as he can. Who or what somebody else 'attacks' is absolutely no justification for who or what I 'attack'. And who or what TK or anybody else attacks has absolutely nothing to do with the topic of this thread.

Ad hominem is never productive in a discussion of a topic and will more often than not cause or increase a derail.

I have tried to focus my remarks on the OP alone and not on other topics anybody has introduced into the thread.

TK offered us a good topic that merits a good discussion. There is a component of our USMB membership, however, who absoluely refuse to focus on any non-personally combative topic, most especially if it treads on their partisan or ideological perspectives.

 

[thereisnospoon]

The wrong was slavery and the subsequent years of racial oppression. Who committed it? White controlled government and society. Yes they are still alive. What does being alive have to do with righting a wrong?

If I support AA obviously I support relaxed hiring and admissions standards. Contrary to popular belief you can learn OJT.

Not in the least bit surprised a black liberal would support a policy that despite it's insulting and offensive overtone, because you can get something for nothing other than the color of your skin and the fact that the idea you are somehow 'owed' something, that makes quotas ok...Sheesh..I suppose you'd be in lockstep support for slavery reparations as well. I'm sure you'll get real far with that..
Doesn't it make your skin crawl knowing that those in charge of hiring or admissions have told you "look, you are black. Therefore you are incapable of making it on your own. We will make up for your lack of ( fill in the blank)...".
Does it not at all register with you that all Affirmative Action did was create resentment and an overall distrust of institutions? And the races of each other?

These do-gooder programs and 'good intentions' have set back race relations for decades.
It is no wonder AA and busing have been cast aside. Both were great ideas in theory but in practice a fucking disaster.
As for you not so well veiled hatred toward whites..
You have the problem. You demand that others be banned from making generalizations about you. Yet you give yourself no such restriction.
Your anger is misplaced. This is typical of most racists who see themselves as perpetual victims. Because the people you wish to lash out at are long dead, in you inability to control your hate, you turn to lash out at those you can see.
I nor my ancestors who did not arrive here until well after the civil war, owe you nothing.
Pointing your finger at those who had nothing to do with your issues gets you no mileage.
Read the words in my signature....See if they mean anything to you.
Could they be words to live by?

You keep missing the fact that white women have benefited from AA more than anyone else. You also seem to lack the ability to understand the concept of righting a wrong. Yes as a citizen of the US I am owed something. I am owed an opportunity that for centuries was not extended to my ancestors. No it doesn't make my skin crawl when I am paid back for my ancestors lack of compensation. Why would it make my skin crawl? Thats stupid to turn down what was never paid to my ancestors. If whites want to think I am incapable thats their problem. I'm not trying to prove anything to them. They can just keep right on thinking that while I move on up the road to my success.

What has set race relations back are the racist attitudes of sheeple whites who accept the boogey man theory or are just outright afraid of losing their control of the other races. Personally I am not angry at whites. I dont like racists but I know they exist. I only lash out at rude ass people and stupidity that keeps progress from going forward. I dont demand others be banned from being stupid I request that they respect the person they are talking about. If they dont then I get to retaliate if public opinion is with me. If you are espousing the same rhetoric as the racists you just became my enemy. I dont care what your ancestors did or did not do. If you are not part of the solution you are part of the problem. Maybe you should read those words and internalize them instead of pointing me to your signature.

Don't start this shit..
You have readily claimed your ethnicity. You have your position on racial matters quite clear. You've also discussed at length how these issues affect black people. Let's stick to the subject, shall we.
Even though other people of various races and ethnicities have benefitted from AA and other set asides, the majority of those affect are blacks. Cut the crap.
Righting a wrong. Yes, you have been programmed to believe people here in the present are every bit as culpable as their predecessors. It allows you to justify taking punishing and impugning them. I have a little newsflash for you....No you don't..
We who are here now did not do a fucking thing to you and we owe you nothing.
SO you may believe by giving the shaft to those who are here now is a good thing, but it is without a doubt a grave injustice.
You are owed nothing. Opportunities are EARNED....
" No it doesn't make my skin crawl when I am paid back for my ancestors lack of compensation. Why would it make my skin crawl? That's stupid to turn down what was never paid to my ancestors."..
SO with that statement, you would willingly support reparations?...Ok. Fine. From whom will you get your dowry? Would you suggest the federal government lay a special "Caucasian tax"?...Yeah, good way to start the second civil war.
And I am thoroughly disgusted by a person who would even dream of taking that money in first place. Have you no self respect? Are you that kind of a person to sink so low as to think to yourself, "Well, they GAVE it to me. I'm not gonna turn it down"...And sit there in your smugness, "well, those white fuckers owe me."...
I don't hate you. I pity you. Anyone who willingly sits by and claims they are owed something or would willingly take from an innocent person, is the lowest of the low.
I have you tabbed as a far left wing Afro-American with a gigantic chip on their shoulder and a real bad attitude. I have less use for you than tits on a bull.
You are a hater.

 

[TemplarKormac]

[MENTION=6847]Foxfyre[/MENTION]:

I usually have people who attack me personally on ignore. I neg people who choose to troll my OP's instead of arguing the material. My OPs rarely attack anyone specifically, but some of the liberal respondents take it as a personal attack when there is none. I am calling their worldview into question, not them themselves.

 

[daveman]

How did you go from what I said to a list of remarks that can be taken as racist? Everyone of those comments met with some consequence. Some of the remarks I thought were racist others I didnt so i wont condemn all of them. if the people saying those things were not driven from their livelihood it is because the people that had an issue with the remarks did not protest or were very few in number. IOW they did not exercise their 1rst amendment rights.

Plainly speaking, liberals are hypocrites. They give their side a free pass for the same offences they condemn conservatives for.

What wrong? Who committed it, and how many of those are still alive?

If it was racial then the white women would not be the #1 benefactors of it.

Do you see relaxed hiring/admissions standards as a good thing? If so, why?

The wrong was slavery and the subsequent years of racial oppression. Who committed it? White controlled government and society. Yes they are still alive. What does being alive have to do with righting a wrong?

Because it's not "justice" if you're punishing people who never committed the wrong and rewarding people who weren't impacted by it.

Is there still some discrimination? Yes, a small amount. Is there legal recourse when someone feels he's been discriminated against? Yes. Undeniably.

So why do you insist on punishing or rewarding the whole of society?

If I support AA obviously I support relaxed hiring and admissions standards. Contrary to popular belief you can learn OJT.

A 105-lb woman can't learn to be an effective police officer or firefighter OJT. There are minimum physical requirements to performing those (and other) jobs. Relaxing those standards puts the public at risk.

That isn't "justice", either.

 

[daveman]

They passed the Civil Rights Act. Were you asleep in history class?

Depends. Do you mean REAL history, or liberal revisionist history?

On This Day in 1964, Democrats Filibustered the Civil Rights Act | The Gateway Pundit

June 10, 1964, was a dramatic day in the United States Senate. For the first time in its history, cloture was invoked on a civil rights bill, ending a record-breaking filibuster by Democrats that had consumed fifty-seven working days. The hero of the hour was minority leader Senator Everett McKinley Dirksen (R-Ill.).

On June 10, 1964, Democrats filibustered the Civil Rights Act.
Grand Old Partisan reported, via DANEgerus:

On this day in 1964, Everett Dirksen (R-IL), the Republican Leader in the U.S. Senate, condemned the Democrats’ 57-day filibuster against the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Leading the Democrats in their opposition to civil rights for African-Americans was Senator Robert Byrd (D-WV). Byrd, who got into politics as a recruiter for the Ku Klux Klan, spoke against the bill for fourteen straight hours. Democrats still call Robert Byrd “the conscience of the Senate.”

In his speech, Senator Dirksen called on the Democrats to end their filibuster and accept racial equality.​

LOL! You have to try harder than than that. The same people that are Dems today are ideologically the same as those who passed the Civil Rights Act. The ones that filibustered and fought it were baby Repubs that hadn't changed their stripes yet.

Ahhh, I get it. Everything good comes from Democrats; everything bad comes from Republicans.

Well, it's easier than thinking, I suppose.

 

[Asclepias]

No. Trent Lott was removed from his position because he praised a colleague on his 100th birthday and his enemies successfully portrayed that to mean that Lott was praising Thurmond's segregationalism. Anybody with a brain knows Lott was smarter than that, anybody with intellectual honesty would have acknowledged that Lott wasn't a segregationalist, and would have given him strong benefit of the doubt that he wasn't even thinking segregationalism when he made the extemporaneous comment. A Democrat would have been immediately shrugged off and it would have been accepted that he wasn't thinking anything bad. But Lott was a target and they got him.

Which is one more example of the visciousness and dishonesty involved in political correctness and why all freedom loving people should condemn it and deplore it when it is used as a weapon to destroy people.

Politics is a dirty game. Everyone knows it. You can make one mis-step and ruin your whole career. If Lott was so intelligent don't you think he would have clarified his remarks to make it perfectly clear he didn't support the segregationist aspect? It would have only taken a few seconds. Could it be possible he knew exactly what he was doing and did support it? Of course this is assuming he is intelligent.

Lott said that if we had followed Thurmond's policies back then, we'd be a lot better off today. So, you are both wrong, one nailed in its anagram denial and the other denying the truth of what Lott said. No wonder you missed the 6th Grade grammar of Lott's forced apology, because stupid is as stupid speaks. Lott's praise of segregation may be one of the few intelligent things he's ever said, but he went back to stupid when he apologized for it.

Thats got to win the prize as either the most racist statement or the most ignorant. Maybe it qualifies for both. Blacks live in this country and in order to make it work then there has to be integration or someone is going to lose out. thats exactly the danger i was pointing out in not punishing stupid public officials speaking their backassward opinions.

 

[Asclepias]

Racism destroys lives? When was the last time the KKK did any real damage? If you weren't a thin skinned child you would treat other racists exactly the way they deserve, you would ignore them.

Are you serious? KKK is guilty of killing a lot of my ancestors. I will always do my best to destroy that type of stupidity and hate.

There is nothing wrong with killing in self-defense. Otherwise, anybody can be proved guilty. Until you are willing to debate that, instead of assuming that the Southerners were committing cold-blooded murder, you are not addressing fact, but only a distortion of fact that makes a fact a crime without any proof of criminal intent.

Killing someone for having sex with a white girl is not self defense see Emmett Till.

 

[daveman]

You keep missing the fact that white women have benefited from AA more than anyone else. You also seem to lack the ability to understand the concept of righting a wrong. Yes as a citizen of the US I am owed something. I am owed an opportunity that for centuries was not extended to my ancestors. No it doesn't make my skin crawl when I am paid back for my ancestors lack of compensation. Why would it make my skin crawl? Thats stupid to turn down what was never paid to my ancestors. If whites want to think I am incapable thats their problem. I'm not trying to prove anything to them. They can just keep right on thinking that while I move on up the road to my success.

No one owes you anything. You already HAVE the opportunities your ancestors were denied. You were born with them. And you deserve nothing extra.

What has set race relations back are the racist attitudes of sheeple whites who accept the boogey man theory or are just outright afraid of losing their control of the other races. Personally I am not angry at whites. I dont like racists but I know they exist. I only lash out at rude ass people and stupidity that keeps progress from going forward. I dont demand others be banned from being stupid I request that they respect the person they are talking about. If they dont then I get to retaliate if public opinion is with me. If you are espousing the same rhetoric as the racists you just became my enemy. I dont care what your ancestors did or did not do. If you are not part of the solution you are part of the problem. Maybe you should read those words and internalize them instead of pointing me to your signature.

You seem to have a blind spot for racists on your own side.

The problem you claim is still there was solved when slavery was made illegal, when blacks were granted the vote, and when the CRA was passed.

You have the same rights as every other American. You don't deserve special rights for something that has no impact on you.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Are you serious? KKK is guilty of killing a lot of my ancestors. I will always do my best to destroy that type of stupidity and hate.

There is nothing wrong with killing in self-defense. Otherwise, anybody can be proved guilty. Until you are willing to debate that, instead of assuming that the Southerners were committing cold-blooded murder, you are not addressing fact, but only a distortion of fact that makes a fact a crime without any proof of criminal intent.

Killing someone for having sex with a white girl is not self defense see Emmett Till.

LOL. I was wondering when you would bring up Emmett Till. All the race baiters do it.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Politics is a dirty game. Everyone knows it. You can make one mis-step and ruin your whole career. If Lott was so intelligent don't you think he would have clarified his remarks to make it perfectly clear he didn't support the segregationist aspect? It would have only taken a few seconds. Could it be possible he knew exactly what he was doing and did support it? Of course this is assuming he is intelligent.

Lott said that if we had followed Thurmond's policies back then, we'd be a lot better off today. So, you are both wrong, one nailed in its anagram denial and the other denying the truth of what Lott said. No wonder you missed the 6th Grade grammar of Lott's forced apology, because stupid is as stupid speaks. Lott's praise of segregation may be one of the few intelligent things he's ever said, but he went back to stupid when he apologized for it.

Thats got to win the prize as either the most racist statement or the most ignorant. Maybe it qualifies for both. Blacks live in this country and in order to make it work then there has to be integration or someone is going to lose out. thats exactly the danger i was pointing out in not punishing stupid public officials speaking their backassward opinions.

Sure, but you ignore all the racists in your own party. Including the ones that were.

 

[daveman]

The wrong was slavery and the subsequent years of racial oppression. Who committed it? White controlled government and society. Yes they are still alive. What does being alive have to do with righting a wrong?

If I support AA obviously I support relaxed hiring and admissions standards. Contrary to popular belief you can learn OJT.

Government mandated racism does not excuse government mandated racism.

That would be a great statement if AA was racist.

"There, there, Mr. Black Man. Us white liberals know you're simply not good enough to get by without our help."

It's racist. Undeniably.

But you see nothing wrong with it. And you dutifully and unthinkingly pull the D lever, exactly as programmed.

You've been indoctrinated that you're inferior, by white liberals, who expect you to vote Democrat without a second's thought.

The Man is keeping you down. And The Man is the Democrat Party.

 

[bendog]

Pointing out that one has a logical, or legal, error in one's thesis is not an attack. And, I didn't make that observation, but merely pointed out that TK is wrong, but not dishonest.

But Christ, get a thick skin if you wanna make a martyr of TK. roflmao

As for Lott and Ole Strom .... What Lott tried to say was the South would have desegregated w/o civil rights laws, and civil rights laws have not only further balkanized southern states into gerrymandered districts, but also led some whites to feel aggrieved. I think he's right, but he was stupid for saying so publically. Essentially his view (and other's views as well) is that any biz that chose not to sell to blacks (or whites) would eventally have been driven to bankruptcy by Wal-Mart or KFC, who don't care about anything but money.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Pointing out that one has a logical, or legal, error in one's thesis is not an attack. And, I didn't make that observation, but merely pointed out that TK is wrong, but not dishonest.

But Christ, get a thick skin if you wanna make a martyr of TK. roflmao

As for Lott and Ole Strom .... What Lott tried to say was the South would have desegregated w/o civil rights laws, and civil rights laws have not only further balkanized southern states into gerrymandered districts, but also led some whites to feel aggrieved. I think he's right, but he was stupid for saying so publically. Essentially his view (and other's views as well) is that any biz that chose not to sell to blacks (or whites) would eventally have been driven to bankruptcy by Wal-Mart or KFC, who don't care about anything but money.

You didn't prove I was wrong. A disagreement with no base does not make me wrong, it makes you an idiot. If you think that your disagreement is the end all be all of my OP, you're sorely misguided.