[speechlesstx]

I think you missed the whole point. Texas was trying to ease the bashing by both sides but you posted exactly the bashing he spoke of.

Bullsh*t. I didn't bash anyone. I'm going to request again for you to prove your claim. Good luck, because you can't.

[speechlesstx]

But, I think you're making a mountain out of a molehill. You keep thinking that there will be a "Fairness Doctrine" established that will be anything but fair to YOUR side. I don't doubt that wackos on the left would do it too, if they could.

I'm really starting to be surprised at what you consider a molehill since the election. If I hadn't seen so many of them stand up for the first amendment then have no problem whatsoever with speech zones on college campuses I might believe you, but that's the way they think - free speech for me, but not for thee.

[NeedKarma]

Bullsh*t. I didn't bash anyone.

Ask Me Help Desk - View Single Post - Tell us how yoo really feel

but the left in this country wants it both ways. They want to regulate if not silence speech on the right and retain their right to lie, slander and mislead.

Also your new thread: https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/curren...es-318010.html
And here too: https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/curren...th-200738.html

[speechlesstx]

Ask Me Help Desk - View Single Post - Tell us how yoo really feel

"They want to regulate if not silence speech on the right and retain their right to lie, slander and mislead."

You call that "hatred, lies, half-truths, name calling, and misrepresentation?" I call it a documented fact.

Also your new thread: https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/curren...es-318010.html

First of all you were referring to this thread, but keep trying, NK. Note the question mark at the end of the title, that I mentioned Democrat tax dodgers - another documented fact, and noted Burris' changing story (two-step) - also a fact.

and here too: https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/curren...th-200738.html

Which of my comments aren't factual and since when is it bashing to ask if someone can tell the truth based on the supporting evidence provided? Give it up, NK, you're certainly in no position to complain of my bashing others.

[NeedKarma]

If one Christian has sex with an underage boy does that make ALL Christians homosexual pedophiles?

[speechlesstx]

If one Christian has sex with an underage boy does that make ALL Christians homosexual pedophiles?

Right, I'm bashing for not always prefacing a comment on the left with "some." My comment is factual. No one is trying to silence liberal speech are they?

[tomder55]

Yeah actually lib listeners have effectively silenced lib radio due to lack of interest .

Even 'Obama 1260' radio in Washington DC was dropped for lack of interest. It was replaced by canned economic reports.

[George_1950]

yeah actually lib listeners have effectively silenced lib radio due to lack of interest .

After all, there is a lot of competition for liberals: ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC, CNN, and probably lots of others I don't know of.

[speechlesstx]

yeah actually lib listeners have effectively silenced lib radio due to lack of interest .

Even 'Obama 1260' radio in Washington DC was dropped for lack of interest. It was replaced by canned economic reports.

Touché, although that was the free market at work and not censorship.

[speechlesstx]

Here's a good example of the people on the left I'm referring to:

Ask God What Your Grade Is
by Mike S. Adams

Jonathan Lopez is a Christian. He is also a student at Los Angeles City College (LACC) in Los Angeles, California. During the fall 2008 semester, Lopez took an Introduction to Public Speaking (Speech 101) class. It was taught by one John Matteson.

In Speech 101 there are several different speaking assignments, including a delivery speech, a culture speech, an informative speech, and a persuasive speech. For the informative speech, Professor Matteson allowed students to cover any topic and to speak between six and eight minutes with or without visual aids.

In November, Jonathan Lopez attempted to give his informative speech on God and the ways he has seen God act miraculously in his life and in the lives of others. In the middle of that speech, Lopez spoke of God and morality and read the dictionary definition of marriage. He also read two verses from the Bible.

But before Lopez was finished with his speech, Professor Matteson interrupted him. After calling Lopez a “fascist bastard” in front of other students, Matteson invited students to leave the class if they had been offended. When no one left, the professor dismissed the entire class.

As Jonathan Lopez prepared to leave class that day he found an evaluation form left in his backpack by Professor Matteson. There was no grade for the informative speech. Instead there was this instruction: “Ask God what your grade is.” It was followed by a statement saying that “prostyelsyszing [sic] is inappropriate in a public school.”

Professor Matteson’s evaluation did not mention that it is “inappropriate” to censor the speech of those belonging to a protected class. Nor did it mention that it is “inappropriate” to do these things while acting under the color of state law.

This was not the first time Professor Matteson’s animus towards Christians had been on display. Several weeks before the aforementioned incident, he told students the following: “If you voted yes on Proposition 8, you are a fascist bastard.”

Naturally, the combined effect of Professor Matteson’s remarks about Proposition 8 and his remarks about Lopez’ informative speech have created a chilling effect on First Amendment expression. It is likely that students other than Lopez are refraining from expressing political, religious, and social beliefs not in line with Professor Matteson’s.

This chilling effect led Jonathan Lopez to meet, in late November, with Allison Jones, Dean of Academic Affairs at LACC. But the problems continued.

On December 1, Lopez and another student arrived late to Speech 101. To prevent interrupting speakers, Professor Matteson required students to wait outside until they heard applause signifying the end of a speech. Mr. Lopez entered late because he did not hear anyone speaking. Because someone was, in fact, speaking, Lopez apologized to the class.

Professor Matteson ignored this apology and decided to confront Lopez in front of his peers with the following: “Not very Christian of you.” The snide remark caused Lopez heightened concern over his eventual outcome in the class. Consequently, Mr. Lopez decided to give Dean Jones a written note describing the December 1 incident.

Unfortunately, Professor Matteson saw Lopez give the note to Dean Jones. The Professor then confronted Lopez. During the confrontation, the Professor said he would make sure that Lopez was expelled from school.

Mr. Lopez then decided to seek legal counsel and to request action to correct Professor Matteson’s conduct. Both Dean Jones and LACC President Jamillah Moore were sent letters through Mr. Lopez’ attorneys. They refused to take any action.

Instead of acting, Dean Jones wrote that she received two complaints from students in Speech 101. One student allegedly said “I do not believe that our classroom is the proper platform for him to spout his hateful propaganda.” Another student allegedly said “I don’t know what kind of actions can be taken in this situation, but I expect that this student should have to pay some price for preaching hate in the classroom.”

Following the inaction of Dean Jones, Mr. Lopez sent, via counsel, a second letter demanding action in his case. Dean Jones responded by saying that the situation had been appropriately addressed. She then brazenly stated that any service of process or tort claims could be served on the District’s General Counsel.

As of this writing, Mr. Lopez still has not received a grade for his informative speech about God and miracles. Only God knows what his grade is.

Exactly as I said this liberal mindset is, free speech for me, but not for thee. The student was denied his right to free speech, insulted, mocked, threatened and accused of "preaching hate." Yet the professor is getting away with it.

[TexasParent]

I think you missed the whole point. Texas was trying to ease the bashing by both sides but you posted exactly the bashing he spoke of.

Maybe it's the Canadian in me, but the extreme positions here in America paralyse you as a nation from time to time and you are slow to come around. I don't know if it was always this way, but I have a feeling it has been as part of your history and the issues that have divided you (i.e. Segregation, Vietnam War, Cold War, etc.).

In Canada, we had very few divisive issues in comparison as we grew as a nation in the shadow of The United States. One thing I admire about American's and it can be a blessing or a curse is your passion for your positions; but that division means as a nation you are slow to develop consensus about a lot of issues, so some injustices take longer to resolve.

I think the Democratic push for the fairness doctrine is to try and restore some balance in reporting and opinion so that the nation can return to being exposed to a minimum of both sides of an issue, rather than the current entrenchment of positions on both sides.

I don't know if Speech will agree, but we argued in another topic about the need for civility; if that is the aim of the fairness doctrine, then I am slightly in favor, but I do worry about any authority regulating speech. So if I carry our conclusion from the other topic forward Speech, I think it is incumbent upon both sides to self govern themselves and return to civility, or as usual if they can't do it, the government will do it for them.

[speechlesstx]

Maybe it's the Canadian in me, but the extreme positions here in America paralyse you as a nation from time to time and you are slow to come around. I don't know if it was always this way, but I have a feeling it has been as part of your history and the issues that have divided you (i.e. Segregation, Vietnam War, Cold War, etc.).

In Canada, we had very few divisive issues in comparison as we grew as a nation in the shadow of The United States. One thing I admire about American's and it can be a blessing or a curse is your passion for your positions; but that division means as a nation you are slow to develop consensus about a lot of issues, so some injustices take longer to resolve.

We have a long tradition of spirited disagreement and I think that’s healthy. I don’t think the true, obvious, outright hatred for the other side is healthy and that’s all I’m talking about here, the extreme, not the passionate, reasoned disagreement even when it lobs the occasional insult.

I think the Democratic push for the fairness doctrine is to try and restore some balance in reporting and opinion so that the nation can return to being exposed to a minimum of both sides of an issue, rather than the current entrenchment of positions on both sides.

I disagree with that, there’s no shortage of reporting or commentary with a liberal slant. If they can’t cut in the market then they deserve to fail.

I don't know if Speech will agree, but we argued in another topic about the need for civility; if that is the aim of the fairness doctrine, then I am slightly in favor, but I do worry about any authority regulating speech. So if I carry our conclusion from the other topic forward Speech, I think it is incumbent upon both sides to self govern themselves and return to civility, or as usual if they can't do it, the government will do it for them.

I’m all for more civility, but the government regulating speech is a scary thought.

[tomder55]

and it can be a blessing or a curse is your passion for your positions; but that division means as a nation you are slow to develop consensus about a lot of issues, so some injustices take longer to resolve.

Just my own opinion ,but I think if the debate was allowed to be played out there would be quicker resolution. However ,too often "solutions " are imposed on the people by the black robed oligarchs in the Supreme Court and that prolongs the debate and the bad feelings.

[TexasParent]

While I don't count myself a conservative, I will come to Speech's defense on one of the points he made.

I guess it doesn't occur to me because I'm usually the one laughing at the jokes and commentary, but Speech's reference to Bill Maher and the like really didn't strike a cord with me until I gave it a second thoughT; and you know, in my opinion he's right.

The 'left' if you will, will easily portray the 'right' in a demeaning fashion and many of us will laugh without giving it a second thought. Yet, if I were on the 'right' I would be upset being categorized or stereotyped in such as fashion, and especially when it's high profile on television.

I feel the same disgust when the conservative radio talk show hosts regularly try and create a negative stereotype of any American who believes anything other than their conservative agenda.

If I didn't know better, it sounds like full blown racist stereotyping by both sides without the usual target of physical difference but in this new round of disturbing characterization bordering on hate by both sides; you are now either a "Liberal" or a "Conservative" which in effect is both sides shouting the N'word at each other and trying to make it stick.

As someone who grew up in Canada, the racism in the United States was clear and disgusting to most Canadian's; and to this now Texadian this new political racism is just as disgusting.

P.S. Admittingly I've been a political racist as well. Racism is a difficult weed to root out once it's taken hold whether that be a stereotype based on the color of someone's skin or the ideas each person has concerning the welfare or lack thereof of our fellow man.

[excon]

Hello tex:

As tom has pointed out on many occasions, politics in the US has always been hard ball.

It's always been good for us, too. Believe it or not, we've even been further apart than we are now. We DID have a civil war, after all.

I'm one of the polarizing figures here too. But, I get along pretty good with the wingers of the wrong persuasion.

I just treat them as though it's not their fault they're deficient.

I don't call them any other names, though, and they know I'm not really serious about that one.

excon

[George_1950]

Hello tex:

I'm one of the polarizing figures here too. But, I get along pretty good with the wingers of the wrong persuasion.

excon

Tex: excon stole my thunder about polarization and the Civil War, but it's quite a lot more than than. All this verbal hokem is about self-government and fair debate. Now, excon is pretty good, but he just has an exalted opinion of himself, but we are concerned about him and trying to bring him along, sort of like a sheep astray. Excon made some derisive comments about Glenn Beck today; but if he had been listening to the TV show on FOX, he would claim Beck as a son.

[speechlesstx]

I'm one of the polarizing figures here too. But, I get along pretty good with the wingers of the wrong persuasion.

I just treat them as though it's not their fault they're deficient.

I don't call them any other names, though, and they know I'm not really serious about that one.

Well we know you're really just a loveable ol' teddy bear so you have to come across as cantankerous to protect your image. ;)

[Skell]

Well we know you're really just a loveable ol' teddy bear so you have to come across as cantankerous to protect your image. ;)

He's easy to see through isn't he? :D

[speechlesstx]

He's easy to see through isnt he?? :D

Yep, just an old softy. :D

[excon]

Hello again:

Cut that out!

excon