|
I would say MLK Jr, but he was shot down, not shouted down.
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2013 04:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 04:14 |
|
|
I understand that there is this Bill O'Reilly person who has been rumored to on occasion behave towards his more liberal guests in a slightly less than considerate manner. And I could swear that I once heard someone say something about not supporting our president being treason, but I'm sure I misunderstood them.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2013 04:33
|
|
|
Well you see Bill O'Reilly is the fairest person on television. And that senator screaming "You lie!" at the President was merely being rude. But there are no incidents of liberal speakers not getting their chance to speak! Very narrow goal posts here.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2013 04:36
|
|
|
Bo-Pepper posted:Well you see Bill O'Reilly is the fairest person on television. And that senator screaming "You lie!" at the President was merely being rude. But there are no incidents of liberal speakers not getting their chance to speak! I hate to say it, but some people are just stuck in their ways of thinking and nothing will change their mind. I had to tell my dad off after he compared the Canadian NDP (leftist) party's leader "Kinda Like Hitler". I flat out told him that was stupid. I could tell he just heard someone else say it and repeated it, but I don't let those word farts just sit in the air any more, father or not. We still have a good relationship, he just doesn't talk politics any more.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2013 04:45
|
|
|
Well, I will certainly agree with your dad that the bill in the works in Tennessee that bans teachers acknowledging the existence of homosexuality is not stopping left-leaning people from speaking their minds.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2013 04:48
|
|
|
Oh I know. I just feel like this point that conservatives don't seek to censor liberal speech must have a concrete counter. Ultimately though I'm just going to let it be.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2013 04:49
|
|
|
Conservatives/Republicans can certainly be such babies they even shout down their own! The St. Charles Missouri republican caucus last election got shut down and the cops pulled in after in-fighting got so bad that cops had to be called. No one got their vote counted because of it. http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/...951ca223b1.html
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2013 04:49
|
|
|
Bo-Pepper posted:I didn't know exactly where to go so I figure this thread is as good as any. I got into a conversation with my father where he dropped the bomb saying there have been no cases where people from the right have tried to shut down incidents of left leaning people speaking their mind publicly. Whereas lefties try to shout down right wingers all the time. My mind melted a little bit as I couldn't believe his rose colored glasses towards this idea of the noble conservative willingness to hear out liberal speakers wherever they may find themselves. When I told him I couldn't believe there were no incidents of conservative censorship of liberal speakers, he demanded examples. It's not really in-person shouting down, but you might link him to things like the Tea Party Community (TPC, see the GBS thread), FreeRepublic or Conservapedia. TPC was set up because they were tired of their viewpoints being challenged on Facebook, and the moderators at TPC and FreeRepublic have openly admitted that they ban users with dissenting opinions. Conservapedia is a conservative "replacement" for the liberally-biased Wikipedia; its contributors are monitored to ensure that no liberal viewpoints end up on its pages. Liberal points-of-view are routinely dismissed as "liberal claptrap" and, as another poster pointed out a page or two ago, the site often backs up controversial statements with citations like "[1] - Fact". If you want live action, a little Google searching brings up a recent event: A liberal woman tries to ask CPAC about conservative racism: quote:It got even worse when the woman tried to ask why Republicans won’t push back on racist comments and campaign ads made in the 2012 campaign, like one racially charged ad put out by Pete Hoekstra. The crowd got rowdy, saying things like, “We don’t want your question,” and “We don’t want to hear it.” A man dressed in a Revolutionary-era costume, a mainstay at most conservative conferences and rallies, repeatedly shouted at her and then somewhat dramatically stormed out, right before the panel ended. Unfortunately, in my experience your father is often right. Conservatives will sit smugly and listen to a liberal argument, then calmly reply with their version of the facts. However, that doesn't mean they're right or even debating civilly; it's not uncommon for the calm response to be a total non sequitur or a buzzword talking point that 3 seconds on Google would disprove (to be fair, this happens on both sides). Search Youtube for Rush Limbaugh clips and you'll find some examples, and probably some shouting-down examples as well. Jan Brewer calmly listens to criticism, then runs away. Just because they listen and reply calmly does not imply that they're actually interested in having a legitimate debate: 
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2013 05:50
|
|
|
This gem showed up on my FB feed a couple times today. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L_-N9_tnWBo I just replied: "Thats an excellent video, she's brings up an excellent point, we should ban handguns too." Then this one: https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=4123638147897 Some weird video. A minute or two in the guy compares a gazelle defending itself from a cheetah with its horns to gun self defence. Thats when I closed the video.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2013 06:12
|
|
|
UnmaskedGremlin posted:Then this one: I was about to post that one since two of my friends have posted those up. It's oh so lovely Bill Whittle. I'm trying to think of ways to tackle this with many of the completely wrong assumptions, 800,000 - 2 million prevented gun crimes (where did that come from and what time span?), going after rifles instead of looking at the big fat elephant of way over half of murders are hand guns and these notable shootings are using assault rifles, strict as hell gun laws in NYC that have lowered crime, and then bullshit to protect us from tyranny from our "Nationalist Socialist Government". Oh dear god... I could go on.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2013 06:21
|
|
|
Bo-Pepper posted:Oh I know. I just feel like this point that conservatives don't seek to censor liberal speech must have a concrete counter. Ultimately though I'm just going to let it be. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_speech_zone George W. Bush made extensive use of Free Speech Zones, which every court in the land agree are basically censorship (usually the free speech zones are far away, or even using it as an excuse to arrest anyone who speaks out). Note, they were used by Clinton, and the DNC during the 2004 Democratic Convention, so expect that to get thrown at you. But Bush definitely used them the most, to silence Iraq War protesters.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2013 06:33
|
|
|
Bo-Pepper posted:I didn't know exactly where to go so I figure this thread is as good as any. I got into a conversation with my father where he dropped the bomb saying there have been no cases where people from the right have tried to shut down incidents of left leaning people speaking their mind publicly. Whereas lefties try to shout down right wingers all the time. My mind melted a little bit as I couldn't believe his rose colored glasses towards this idea of the noble conservative willingness to hear out liberal speakers wherever they may find themselves. When I told him I couldn't believe there were no incidents of conservative censorship of liberal speakers, he demanded examples. Anytime Hannity or O'Reilly kill the mike of whatever guest they have on their respective shows.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2013 06:50
|
|
|
There is a ton wrong with this video, from "Gun control would take away my shooting scholarship!" (um no, it really wouldn't) to "Gun control means poor people will be murdered more often!" (which is just crazy), but two things really, really stood out to me. I don't have time for a point-by-point rebuttal, but these two things are pretty egregious: 1) She claims it's more dangerous to live in Chicago than in Afghanistan for patently absurd reasons, because "for the past 11 years and 4 months, in the Afghani War, 2,166 people have been killed. Now in only 8 years in Chicago, 4,265 people have been killed, and 3,371 of them were from being shot." First of all, I love how the only 'people' who have been killed in Afghanistan are US soldiers, because her estimate of deaths completely ignores the over 10,000 Afghan civilians who have died as a result of the war, as well as the deaths of soldiers from other countries. But okay, she could be saying that as an American you're more likely to die in Chicago than Afghanistan. But that's making a basic statistical mistake because there are a lot more Americans in Chicago than in Afghanistan. At present there are 68,000 US soldiers in Afghanistan and nearly 10 million people in the greater Chicago area. Even just using her death statistics but applying it to per capita rather than overall deaths, that makes you a lot more likely to die as a US soldier in Afghanistan than a random person in Chicago. Basically, if a town of 100 people had 10 murders in one year (a rate of 10%) and a city of one million people had 100 murders (a rate of 0.01%) this girl would say you're more likely to die living in the big city. 2) "On December 14, 2012, the same day as the Sandy Hook shooting, in central China, a man stabbed 22 children and one adult. Guns are not needed for mass murder..." Actually, according to your very anecdote they are required for mass murder, because in that mass stabbing in China no one died. 24 people got stabbed and not a single one of them died as a result. Injured, yes. Dead, no. Compared to the 26 deaths (not counting Lanza and his mother) and whole two non-fatal injuries at Sandy Hook, that's a whole world of difference. Would I trade in my nebulous right to gun self-defence in exchange for mass stabbings instead of mass shootings? You're drat right I would. They're way less deadly as well as being way easier to escape from or fight back against.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2013 06:58
|
|
|
I got a response to the China attack comparison to the effect of "He wasn't trying to kill the children, only to maim them." But what if he'd been trying to maim them with a gun?
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2013 07:16
|
|
|
Bo-Pepper posted:I didn't know exactly where to go so I figure this thread is as good as any. I got into a conversation with my father where he dropped the bomb saying there have been no cases where people from the right have tried to shut down incidents of left leaning people speaking their mind publicly. Whereas lefties try to shout down right wingers all the time. My mind melted a little bit as I couldn't believe his rose colored glasses towards this idea of the noble conservative willingness to hear out liberal speakers wherever they may find themselves. When I told him I couldn't believe there were no incidents of conservative censorship of liberal speakers, he demanded examples. There's all sorts of examples from Tea Party rallies. This one is probably the best. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Q7XH8lfGMc An old guy with a "Public Option Now!" banner has to have cops escort him through the crowd as people attempt to get in his face, pull down his banner and ultimately try to cover his banner with signs on their own. Call Me Charlie fucked around with this message at 07:57 on Apr 3, 2013 |
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2013 07:54
|
|
|
There's always that one guy who had a sarcastic anti-war(?) sign at a tea party rally. A bunch of them didn't get the sarcasm and the guy was attacked and his sign destroyed. Cannot for the life of me find the article/video though.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2013 08:43
|
|
|
These aren't too bad, but still wtf? He does that every. single. time. there is a news story about a non-gun related injury or death. He shared this status from a gun site. quote:The term "Free Country", among other things, means that you don't have to receive permission from your government to do every little thing that you want to do, but rather, The People are the ones who tell the government what they must do or not do. I commented that I agreed 100%. Because police officers, only encounter people with slingshots and bb guns. ------- WARNING: The following image, is the stuff of nightmares... 
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2013 09:20
|
|
|
He knows that America does control who is and isn't allowed to drive a car with mandatory licensing, and also bans certain types of cars that are considered too dangerous, right? Also I'm imagining a society where citizens are allowed to buy assault weapons, tanks, fighter jets, and so on, but the government and police aren't, and it is a scary scary place. Although I imagine it would fairly quickly devolve into 'policemen are allowed to use privately purchased weapons on duty, and oh look at that all our policemen coincidentally happen to buy a new automatic weapon with their new hiring bonus'.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2013 13:06
|
|
|
Bo-Pepper posted:I didn't know exactly where to go so I figure this thread is as good as any. I got into a conversation with my father where he dropped the bomb saying there have been no cases where people from the right have tried to shut down incidents of left leaning people speaking their mind publicly. Whereas lefties try to shout down right wingers all the time. My mind melted a little bit as I couldn't believe his rose colored glasses towards this idea of the noble conservative willingness to hear out liberal speakers wherever they may find themselves. When I told him I couldn't believe there were no incidents of conservative censorship of liberal speakers, he demanded examples. Free Speech Zones edit: oops, already mentioned.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2013 13:55
|
|
|
Kat R. Waulin posted:WARNING: The following image, is the stuff of nightmares... Buck Denver.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2013 14:30
|
|
|
Sporadic posted:There's all sorts of examples from Tea Party rallies. This one is probably the best. I suddenly also remembered this gem from Oregon http://www.examiner.com/article/oregon-tea-party-thugs-terrorize-progressive-potluck-picnic To be fair, it was a potluck lunch, which is basically socialism, so it's only fair the Tea Party try to shut that poo poo down.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2013 14:46
|
|
|
Sporadic posted:There's all sorts of examples from Tea Party rallies. This one is probably the best. This one will never not cease to be amazing https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ik4f1dRbP8
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2013 15:19
|
|
|
Wanna have some fun with this? Make an alternate version. Change the guy's name to "Ben Dover," and change the Bible passage to Ezekiel 23:20.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2013 16:27
|
|
|
vyelkin posted:There is a ton wrong with this video, from "Gun control would take away my shooting scholarship!" (um no, it really wouldn't) to "Gun control means poor people will be murdered more often!" (which is just crazy), but two things really, really stood out to me. I don't have time for a point-by-point rebuttal, but these two things are pretty egregious: In much less words, I agree with all of this, and thought of both points while watching the video, but went with the snarky response first, then wouldn't dropped something like this if it went anywhere, which it didn't.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2013 16:29
|
|
|
I Am The Scum posted:Wanna have some fun with this? Make an alternate version. Change the guy's name to "Ben Dover," and change the Bible passage to Ezekiel 23:20. I like how an allegory for the religious infidelity of Jerusalem is almost just an excuse to write about body parts he claims to find sinful. Maybe Ezekiel was the first Freeper.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2013 16:35
|
|
|
This one was fun today: I'm green. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2013 16:40
|
|
|
Kat R. Waulin posted:These aren't too bad, but still wtf? What if we want to 'tell the government' to ban guns? Constitutionally protected rights are a great thing and maybe gun ownership ought to be among them, but that's not what he said. The right has become very enmored with the idea that anything they don't like comes from some authoritarian borg-mind hovering somewhere over DC. Or at least they find that a convienient way to frame debate.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2013 16:46
|
|
|
Well this is a thing: North Carolina wants to establish a state religion! http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2013/04/03/north-carolina-lawmakers-introduce-law-to-establish-an-official-state-religion/ What do you even call this? "The only moral Constitution is my Constitution!" ?  "I only care about fiscal responsibility and Constitutionality when other people are doing it"?
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2013 16:49
|
|
|
UnmaskedGremlin posted:This one was fun today: All I see are fields of rainbow dongs.  I think "free market" should qualify as a religion at this point; it requires the same blind faith and dogmatic practice as any other.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2013 16:50
|
|
|
Isn't the government being in the mortgage business and essentially setting the national standard of a 30 year mortgage with Freddie and Fannie helping to back it up the one thing that has made homes affordable for many people over the past 40 years. Meanwhile, the sub-prime bonanza whether it was the original Long Term Capital in the 90's or the ensuing clusterfuck in 2008, the crashes were driven by pure market greed. So much greed companies in the end would destroy themselves to make a better quarterly report.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2013 16:51
|
|
|
DarkHorse posted:Well this is a thing: North Carolina wants to establish a state religion! Don't certain states try to do this type of thing all the time, and if they get close the feds just smack them down? Why can't they learn?
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2013 16:55
|
|
|
OAquinas posted:All I see are fields of rainbow dongs. That was intentional. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2013 16:59
|
|
|
Radical Griff posted:Don't certain states try to do this type of thing all the time, and if they get close the feds just smack them down? Why can't they learn? All the time, and they spend a ton of TAXPAYER  money defending obviously unconstitutional cases. But it's okay to spend money on things that contravene the founders' wishes expressed in the Constitution, it's when you spend money on sick children or poor families that you cross a line, or when you're a
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2013 17:00
|
|
|
DarkHorse posted:All the time, and they spend a ton of TAXPAYER Halfrican-American 
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2013 17:09
|
|
|
I'm sure most of the people who cry about government leaving businesses alone wouldn't want limited liability laws to repealed. I also don't think they realise that the state grants and enforces private property rights.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2013 18:16
|
|
|
Lady Gaza posted:I also don't think they realise that the state grants and enforces private property rights. They would argue those rights are not the government's to grant to begin with, and are "natural laws" derived from God or whatever.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2013 18:26
|
|
|
quote:At first I thought this was funny....Then I realized the awful truth of it. Be sure to read all the way to the end!
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2013 19:20
|
|
|
Xemloth posted:Great now my brother is sharing stuff. Did you guys know that 100 years ago everything was perfect and the UK was a utopian society? Thats enough to scare the dickens out of you.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2013 19:22
|
|
|
Yes what in the hell happened a hundred years ago that caused the uk to borrow money, truly a mystery
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2013 19:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 04:14 |
|
|
Wow, a hundred years ago we weren't even taxing airports. And now... incredible. What could possibly have led to this?
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2013 19:27
|
|
