Politics: A new beginning

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
Maybe. But I have yet to see you come up with a two line position on the first amendment that represents the Right. Is this a fool's errand?

"The Right believes that free speech should continue to exist in the same general legal context that prevailed on December 15, 1791 when Virginia supplied the required three-quarters vote for ratification of the Bill of Rights. As a result, the Right believes that national security and the suppression of sedition are always compelling state interests, leaving the only question whether proposed governmental controls are narrowly tailored."

[SlaveNoMore]

Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
And I've supported losing teams before (I grew up a Mets fan); builds character. Try it some time.

I did. See the NY Yankees circa 1970-1976; 1981-1995.

I believe it was the second of those periods when everyone around me was wearing a Mets jersey of one of the cokeheads [a/k/a Gooden, Strawberry and Hernandez]. Frontrunners all.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
I did. See the NY Yankees circa 1970-1976; 1981-1995.

Don't worry, those days will come again.

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I am only a Republican because of the 2 parties they come the closest to representing me on the issues I care most about. I suspect that on many issues (e.g., free speech, gay rights) I am as liberal as you are.

Ahem, don't fall for their marxist murder marcher tricks! They are as conservative as you are on these issues, not the other way around. Isn't a 21st century conservative all about personal liberty and equal treatment? To me it is, and these two fall right in line.

Hello

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by sgtclub

The Right believes that the first Amendment is critical to the American way of life, but that, at times, the rights of the individual to speak freely are outweighed by the rights of the people as a whole to be secure.

OK, I buy that for the right. I'd leave off the qualification for the left; I don't think we would get consensus on it. If I'm willing to concede a qualificaiton on freedom of speech or religion, I would focus on speech likely to result in immediate bodily harm (e.g., yelling "Fire" in a crowded theatre). I would put up with no limits on political speech -- if we must limit it, we lose what we are fighting for.

I do think there are some who would limit "hate speech" on the left; I say, let people pursue their traditional civil remedies on such speech, and, more importantly, on any actions that occur as a result of or simultaneously with the speech, but don't prohibit the speech.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
Ahem, don't fall for their marxist murder marcher tricks! They are as conservative as you are on these issues, not the other way around. Isn't a 21st century conservative all about personal liberty and equal treatment? To me it is, and these two fall right in line.

Hello

Cf. A.G. Ashcroft.

No, hello.

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
"The Right believes that free speech should continue to exist in the same general legal context that prevailed on December 15, 1791 when Virginia supplied the required three-quarters vote for ratification of the Bill of Rights. As a result, the Right believes that national security and the suppression of sedition are always compelling state interests, leaving the only question whether proposed governmental controls are narrowly tailored."

Well, I'm still grappling mentally with that sedition thing, but otherwise I like it.

Hello

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
Ahem, don't fall for their marxist murder marcher tricks! They are as conservative as you are on these issues, not the other way around. Isn't a 21st century conservative all about personal liberty and equal treatment? To me it is, and these two fall right in line.

Hello

Great point, though I do believe we are in the minority of conservatives that believe this.

[SlaveNoMore]

Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
Don't worry, those days will come again.

I'm sure they will. But not yet. Not. Yet.

Where do you think Nomar will be playing next year? Do you think John Henry will pony up the cash for Tejada?

s4(go Fish!!!)e

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
Cf. A.G. Ashcroft.

No, hello.

That guy is soooo the Yin to Hillary's Yang. I have very little* doubt that they were both Red Chinese plants sent here to destabilize America. Now if I could just figure out who their handler is, I'd unmask this marxist conspiracy.

Cf., uhm, like George Will maybe?

Hello

* Despite the absence of physical proof, technically none.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
That guy is soooo the Yin to Hillary's Yang. I have very little* doubt that they were both Red Chinese plants sent here to destabilize America. Now if I could just figure out who their handler is, I'd unmask this marxist conspiracy.

Cf., uhm, like George Will maybe?

Hello

* Despite the absence of physical proof, technically none.

If you want to espouse leftist views while calling yourself a righty, you've got to do better than George Will.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
I'm sure they will. But not yet. Not. Yet.

Where do you think Nomar will be playing next year? Do you think John Henry will pony up the cash for Tejada?

s4(go Fish!!!)e

The man seems to have cash to spend; Nomar graces Fenway another year.

The Red Sox are elusive. They come from behind. Don't count your chicks quite yet, even if your team is up.

[rufus leeking]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
"The Right believes that free speech should continue to exist in the same general legal context that prevailed on December 15, 1791 when Virginia supplied the required three-quarters vote for ratification of the Bill of Rights. As a result, the Right believes that national security and the suppression of sedition are always compelling state interests, leaving the only question whether proposed governmental controls are narrowly tailored."

where does the right, at least mainstream right, try and limit speech? are you talking about Susan Sarandon and Michael Moore? I don't think people feel they don't have the right to say assinine things at inappropriate tims. We just then have the right to boycott their movies.* Is there something else?

*for Moore a widespread right wing boycott is probably not too much of a threat.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
If you want to espouse leftist views while calling yourself a righty, you've got to do better than George Will.

I guess you didn't get the memo. Excesses of the left are now considered fascism. It's like "Joust"; if your ostrich skids past the far left of the screen, it just reappears on the far right.

All excesses of the right are more like "Defender"; keep going right, baby, and bomb the shit out of everything you see. Eventually you'll be taken to a new level, where you continue flying right and finding new shit to bomb.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by rufus leeking
where does the right, at least mainstream right, try and limit speech? are you talking about Susan Sarandon and Michael Moore? I don't think people feel they don't have the right to say assinine things at inappropriate tims. We just then have the right to boycott their movies.* Is there something else?

Three words: Flag Burning Amendment.