The left long ago gave up any pretense of supporting the 1st Amendment--hate speech, free speech zones, etc.
Here are some more of those patriotic liberals (DQTP!) exercising their 1st Amendment rights.
"Go home," troops that we totally support. You're "not welcome," good men and women of the armed services, whose service we appreciate so sincerely even though we don't necessarily support your mission in Iraq. Riiight. Tell me more about it.
Those messages in boldface above were spraypainted on government cars outside a newly-opened recruiting station in North Carolina.
haha, i find it hilarious that you say "peaceful protesters" when you are talking about your buddies, the anti-abortion pro-life communists. communism is when you don't have a choice in what to believe, you do what your government says and have no say in the matter. isn't an abortion a choice, a choice to not put a child through a childhood where there isn't always food on the table or a roof over your head. where they have a better chance of starving to death than making it out of the ghetto they were born to. under these circumstances there have been more criminals and ex-cons made than people who have done any good for their community. as for being peaceful, haha. please feel free to check out the entire article at:
Level of violence and harassment at abortion clinics
One source reported in late 1996, that there has been "over $13 million in damage caused by violent anti-abortion groups since 1982 in over 150 arson attacks, bombings, and shootings." 1
Many pro-choice individuals and groups blame these criminal acts on the most violent extremists in the pro-life movement. Some believe that the violent rhetoric heard from pro-lifers motivates the more radical pro-life fringe to resort to violence.
Many pro-life individuals and groups blame the violence on groups which are quite separate from the pro-life movement -- people who have little regard for human life.
I don't care if you publish my comment, i truly don't. but at least now you know the facts, not some opinion from a judge. have a good day.
I believe you posted this comment to the wrong post.
*I* didn't call the protestors peaceful, the author/judge did. Take your concerns up with him.
As for your "facts" about abortion, you obviously need to learn the difference between facts and opinion. When was the last time you heard about *any* violence at an abortion clinic? You pro-abortion people will jump at *anything* to justify murdering potential humans. Amazing.
Now let's try to either stay on topic or post comments to the correct post, shall we? This one is about the 1st Amendment.
Ah, but as a right-wing troglodyte, you've got this quaint notion about inalienable rights. How very 17th century of you. The, simultaneously, modern and archaic view is that there's no such thing as inalienable rights.
There are privileges, conferred or retracted by the natural leaders of humankind, at their whim. Among these privileges is one that's referred to as "freedom of speech". Naturally, the leaders who determine who may exercise their privilege of speech, are not constrained by the limitations they (would) impose on their natural subordinates.
If you keep that definition in mind then the response of your favorite student becomes both appropriate and reasonable. Royalty makes rules for the lesser forms. Royalty does not obey the rules they've made for the lesser forms. Superiority confers independence from the opinions of the inferior and from the rules that are imposed upon them.
Part of the reason the Constitution must be considered a living document is that the implication of the first line of the Declaration of Independence, "we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights", is clearly untrue. The lefty version of that line would read something along the lines of "I hold this truth to be self-evident, that some people are endowed by their superior intelligence, compassion, generosity and sense of justice with the inarguable claim to rule those not so endowed".
I hope that makes things clear.
Allen, I guess the only way *I* can become one of the annointed ones is to change just about every view I hold?
Not worth it; it's *not* better to rule in Hell than to serve in Heaven.
Actually, Pelosi's assault on the First Amendment is far more poisonous. See here.
The views are the result not the cause.
The cause is the, largely, impenetrable assumption of superiority.
That's why the liberal version of the Declaration of Independence starts the way it does. There are "the masses" and there are the people who use the phrase "the masses" without the slightest blush of embarrassment, implicitly excepting themselves.
Problem is, that definition encompasses some people who define themselves as "conservative" and their problem is they don't have a sense of irony.
Allen, I am again greatly confused by you. You show such great wit and knowledge but often your insights get lost in the delivery (I think). First, the use of the word archaic is archaic (I am not original, see Levi-Strauss) and implies you believe human society is progressing forward. You stay consistent by attacking a sense of antiquarianism in lining up with 17th century Enlightenment thinking. Still, you go on to state (and I am not accusing you of outright plagiarism), “Royalty makes rules for the lesser forms. Royalty does not obey the rules they've made for the lesser forms. Superiority confers independence from the opinions of the inferior and from the rules that are imposed upon them.” How 15th century of you (Machiavelli) to reference “The Prince” or, even worse, how 4th century BCE of you to reference “The Republic” (Plato).
I, now showing how dense I am, believe you meant to write your comment satirically to expose the senselessness of Your Favorite Student. Thus, the above comment of mine is pointless and in line with most of what you wrote. If not, I am so confused by you because your dramatic and witty ending spoils all before it. With such said, where in the world did you come up with such an ending? I always understood such a statement to be of the opinion of James Madison and the founders of Republicanism, which is cherished as the ancestral line of modern conservatives (though I have previously ranted against identifying parties today with parties in the past). I guess a liberal might argue a “righty” ( a pathetic pseudo-derogatory term) version of the line would read: “I hold this truth to be self-evident, that some people are endowed by their superior MORALITY, compassion, generosity and sense of justice with the inarguable claim to rule those not so endowed.”
I have noticed, from Republicans and Democrats, Liberals and Conservatives, a trend to essentialize all the people of “opposing” ideologies to neatly identify and categorize perceived differences so notions of right and wrong, correct and right can be derived. I do not think it is so simple. I do not believe a pure “lefty” or “righty” exists. Some may be so by drastically more by degrees than others are, or even profess purity in ideological belief, but such would quickly label the person as equally “fundamental” or “radical” (assuming such terms are derogatory as well I confess).
"I have noticed, from Republicans and Democrats, Liberals and Conservatives, a trend to essentialize all the people of “opposing” ideologies to neatly identify and categorize perceived differences so notions of right and wrong, correct and right can be derived."
No, right and wrong pre-exist the identifications. Yet you are the one proceeding from logical fallacies, not Darren, particularly in your earlier comments about Jefferson.
You're working under two logical fallacies, both common these days. You're taking characters and events out of historical context by judging them by today's standards, and you're assuming that one fault (identified by that logical fallacy) calls into question everything about the characters and the events.
You cannot judge Jefferson by any standards other than those of his time -- and therefore, you cannot rule him defective because he owned slaves. And even if you could, you cannot use Jefferson's ownership of slaves to call into question everything about him.
For exactly the same resons, you cannot do the same with the Founding Fathers as a group. The fact that blacks and whites were not equal is nothing more than the historical reality of the period. It was the same in Britain and Europe. As far as that goes, it is still the same with black and black in Africa, where slavery is still very much alive.
John S. thanks, I'm pretty sure.
I was teeing off on the common thread that connects the modern left-winger (mostly) and monarchies. The assumption of fitness to rule based on arbitrary criteria: dad was king, membership in the proletariat, being a god who's taken human form, having a Phd in political science, etc. There's always some very good reason to avoid the bother of asking for permission to govern.
That's what I was referring too when I mentioned the archaic view of inalienable rights. They didn't exist because the divine right of kings precludes the concept of inalienable rights.
The modern version of the divine right of kings, the arbitrary claim to political power, shows up as some variation of a presumption of moral ("it's for the children!") and/or intellectual superiority. You man the ramparts to confront the minion's of the capitalist oppressors or you understand the fragile nature of the environment but in either case the assumption of moral and intellectual superiority is clear.
There's one phrase that subsumes the different issues and reveals the underlying truth. That phrase is "the masses".
Someone who uses the phrase is, implicitly, drawing a distinction between themselves and "the masses". I think we can safely assume that the distinction isn't drawn to call attention to the superior intellectual or moral qualities of "the masses" which implies the superiority lies with the person who uses the phrase without blushing.
A lefty's use of the phrase is understandable. That's the end of the political spectrum which draws people who don't believe that "all men are created equal", any statements to the contrary not withstanding.
My parting shot at "some conservatives", people at my end of the political spectrum, was for the use of the phrase "the masses" by people who purport to uphold the ideal of inalienable rights and equality before the law. It requires a non-functioning sense of irony to use the phrase "the masses" while claiming to stand for a sovereign citizenry.
There's certainly a tendency to push people into easily identifiable categories. There are only so many hours in the day and once you've zeroed in on the characteristics that are important to you, the points at which disagreement is strongest, why continue to delve? That may sometimes lead you to an incorrect conclusion but that danger has to be weighed against the amount of time that would have to be spent to uncover a more complete portrait. If any additional information appears there's no reason to prevent reconsideration.
Besides, idealogical purity is only a necessity to the ideologue. For the rest of us close enough is usually good enough.
Last item. I'm not using the term “lefty” as a pejorative and I don't believe it carries any, or much, pejorative connotation. Some identifying word/phrase is necessary and since I've gotten my fill of the politically motivated name-changes – liberal is now progressive, etc. - I use the word that removes any doubt about what or who it is I'm discussing. If someone chooses to read additional meaning into my word choice, that's not my responsibility.
Post a Comment