# Stupid liberal idea of the day **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [April 20, 2011, 3:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-liberal-idea-of-the-day/579086 "2011-04-20T15:35:49Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 9
**Author:** ![Revtim](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/revtim/32/1042_2.png) [@Revtim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revtim)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2011, 1:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-liberal-idea-of-the-day/579086/161 "2011-04-27T13:04:47Z")
> [@marshmallow](#): > > Returning to the OP, and this is more of a “stupid liberal idea of the century,” but liberals think it’s not only practical but moral to bomb people until they like you or do what you say. Forever. Now maybe I don’t recall the the past couple decades or so as well as I should, but I kinda recall mostly Republicans starting wars and liberals being called unpatriotic for not fully supporting these wars. Did I get that backwards somehow? ---
**Author:** ![constanze](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f9ae1b/32.png) [@constanze](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/constanze)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2011, 1:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-liberal-idea-of-the-day/579086/162 "2011-04-27T13:13:13Z")
Okay, reading 2 of the 4 pages, I still don’t know what game “Red Rover” is. I have seen the South Park Episode (about sex ed.) which involves a Red Rover game (masturbating a dog to make it come), but I suspect this is not what’s meant in this context. Wikipedia lets me down however, so how is Red Rover played? ---
**Author:** ![Jack\_Batty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jack_batty/32/3201_2.png) [@Jack\_Batty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jack_Batty)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2011, 1:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-liberal-idea-of-the-day/579086/163 "2011-04-27T13:14:50Z")
> [@constanze](#): > > I have seen the South Park Episode (about sex ed.) which involves a Red Rover game (masturbating a dog to make it come), Wow. “Here, boy,” always seemed to work well for me. ---
**Author:** ![Inigo\_Montoya](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/inigo_montoya/32/124_2.png) [@Inigo\_Montoya](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Inigo_Montoya)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2011, 1:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-liberal-idea-of-the-day/579086/164 "2011-04-27T13:17:41Z")
> [@constanze](#): > > Wikipedia lets me down however, so how is Red Rover played? Bunch of kids standing in two lines facing each other. the kids in each line are holding hands, making a people chain. Each line takes a turn saying, “Red Rover Red Rover send **constanze** right over.” constanze, who is in the opposite line, runs at the line who called and tries to break through. If successful, constanze picks a player from the calling line and returns home. If the line holds, constanze is now amember of the calling team. ---
**Author:** ![42fish](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/4/b487fb/32.png) [@42fish](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/42fish)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2011, 1:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-liberal-idea-of-the-day/579086/165 "2011-04-27T13:30:14Z")
[QUOTE=Stoid] It’s that fancypants righty way of reading the Constitution: even though the Founders didn’t explicity say “political” speech, we are supposed to infer that they intended us to understand that they were limiting it to political speech… [/QUOTE] > [@Starving\_Artist](#): > > This is particularly amusing since it was elicidator who claimed it created for the express purpose of protecting political speech. (No, really, it’s true. You can look it up.) Yeah, where could **Stoid** have gotten the wacky idea that you think the First Ammendment is limited to only political speech. Maybe it was from: > [@Starving\_Artist](#): > > Exactly! Especially and “specifically” political speech. That means it was intended to protect political speech specifically and it says nothing one way or the other about other types of speech or other types of expression. The deceit that it does is a liberal invention. ---
**Author:** ![Zeriel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/58956e/32.png) [@Zeriel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zeriel)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2011, 1:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-liberal-idea-of-the-day/579086/166 "2011-04-27T13:32:12Z")
> [@Starving\_Artist](#): > > I don’t know how New York City’s libraries are configured either, but in every library I’ve ever been in all the computers are easily visible to anyone walking about the floor of the library. Unless the “adult” computers are all situated so that the customer in question has his back to a wall, I don’t see how it would be possible to prevent people passing behind them to see what’s on their screen. In the event that the computers used to access pornography were indeed situated so as to prevent the possibility of anyone other than the patron in question from seeing them, then I would admittedly have much less of a problem with it. However, there was nothing in either of the articles I linked to which would suggest that this is the case. My town does a lot of smart things like this, mostly because the population quadruples when the college kids come around. > [@](#): > > Apart from the fact that I never said the word “political” was included in the wording of the First Amendment, may I suggest you ask **elucidator** , since he was the one who first claimed “The Big One was intended to protect, especially and specifically, political speech”. I did call him out on it, upthread, in the same place I first asked you about it. You agreed with him vehemently, so I’m including you–that, and I expect you might actually answer with something other than a quip. > [@Starving Artist](#): > > Exactly! Especially and “specifically” political speech. That means it was intended to protect political speech specifically and it says nothing one way or the other about other types of speech or other types of expression. The deceit that it does is a liberal invention. Are the scare quotes supposed to mean “not specifically”, then? Could you point out what about it makes you believe it specifically refers to political speech in the plain language of the Constitution? I’m not being disingenuous here, mind you–I take the exact same position with regard to the Second Amendment (AKA the number one reason I don’t vote Democrat very often)–words and grammar mean something. Just as I don’t believe the subordinate explanatory clause in the Second Amendment lets the government confine weapons to “well-regulated militias”, I do believe the absence of any adjectives in the “freedom of speech” clause was a deliberate choice to not limit the types of speech that should be protected. ---
**Author:** ![42fish](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/4/b487fb/32.png) [@42fish](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/42fish)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2011, 2:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-liberal-idea-of-the-day/579086/167 "2011-04-27T14:19:38Z")
> [@Starving\_Artist](#): > > In the event that the computers used to access pornography were indeed situated so as to prevent the possibility of anyone other than the patron in question from seeing them, then I would admittedly have much less of a problem with it. However, there was nothing in either of the articles I linked to which would suggest that this is the case. [QUOTE=The Article Starving Artist Linked To] Nazario said the privacy shields at the side of the computers protected her from seeing the images… [/QUOTE] Disclaimer: The article does then quote Nazario as saying “but I could still hear the voices,” which certainly is a problem. ---
**Author:** ![Stoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stoid/32/272_2.png) [@Stoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoid)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2011, 2:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-liberal-idea-of-the-day/579086/168 "2011-04-27T14:23:02Z")
> [@Zeriel](#): > > Just as I don’t believe the subordinate explanatory clause in the Second Amendment lets the government confine weapons to “well-regulated militias”, [Sigh…](http://www.drbilllong.com/CurrentEventsXIV/Second.html) ---
**Author:** ![Truman\_Burbank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/ecc23a/32.png) [@Truman\_Burbank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Truman_Burbank)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2011, 2:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-liberal-idea-of-the-day/579086/169 "2011-04-27T14:29:16Z")
> [@marshmallow](#): > > Returning to the OP, and this is more of a “stupid liberal idea of the century,” but liberals think it’s not only practical but moral to bomb people until they like you or do what you say. Forever. You might want to visit the ‘Stupid Republican Idea’ thread to get an idea of how this is supposed to work. You take a specific (current) event or quote clearly belonging to someone from the liberal side of the political spectrum, and then debate/belittle it. Ad Hominems are just weak (and, in your case, spectacularly ignorant, as well!) ---
**Author:** ![Enderw24](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/ba9def/32.png) [@Enderw24](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Enderw24)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2011, 2:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-liberal-idea-of-the-day/579086/170 "2011-04-27T14:38:09Z")
> [@Starving\_Artist](#): > > The fact of the matter is, people on your side of the aisle are perfectly happy to prohibit speech and actions that you disapprove of. Lots of people from every side of the twelve zodiac political spectrums believe that good speech (as defined by them) should be allowed and bad speech (as defined by them) should be prohibited. You’re no exception. Do you honestly see no irony or hypocrisy in railing against a library allowing pornos while simultaneously chastising liberals with the above quoted section? ---
**Author:** ![Gyrate](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gyrate/32/3588_2.png) [@Gyrate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gyrate)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2011, 2:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-liberal-idea-of-the-day/579086/171 "2011-04-27T14:45:32Z")
> [@Enderw24](#): > > Do you honestly see no irony or hypocrisy in railing against a library allowing pornos while simultaneously chastising liberals with the above quoted section? You’re asking whether **Starving Artist** has an awareness of irony or hypocrisy? Welcome to the **SDMB**! ---
**Author:** ![Zeriel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/58956e/32.png) [@Zeriel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zeriel)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2011, 2:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-liberal-idea-of-the-day/579086/172 "2011-04-27T14:50:04Z")
> [@Stoid](#): > > [Sigh…](http://www.drbilllong.com/CurrentEventsXIV/Second.html) Start another thread if you want to continue this hijack, I’m not addressing the argument here, merely staking claim to “not a Democrat” ground. But please do start another thread with that link, because that guy’s an idiot and doesn’t know the definitions of the words he is reading in a legal context. ---
**Author:** ![VinylTurnip](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/b2d939/32.png) [@VinylTurnip](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/VinylTurnip)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2011, 3:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-liberal-idea-of-the-day/579086/173 "2011-04-27T15:22:44Z")
> [@marshmallow](#): > > Returning to the OP, and this is more of a “stupid liberal idea of the century,” but liberals think it’s not only practical but moral to bomb people until they like you or do what you say. Forever. I wholeheartedly agree this is a stupid idea, and it’s disheartening to see it handed down from the Bush regime like an ill-fitting, moth-eaten heirloom corset. If a liberal administration ever takes the Presidency, I hope they will discard it immediately. ---
**Author:** ![Digital\_Stimulus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/aeb1de/32.png) [@Digital\_Stimulus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Digital_Stimulus)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2011, 6:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-liberal-idea-of-the-day/579086/174 "2011-04-27T18:11:47Z")
> [@constanze](#): > > Okay, reading 2 of the 4 pages, I still don’t know what game “Red Rover” is. I have seen the South Park Episode (about sex ed.) which involves a Red Rover game (masturbating a dog to make it come), but I suspect this is not what’s meant in this context. Wikipedia lets me down however, so how is Red Rover played? FYI, that’s [red rocket](http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/152832/red-rocket), not Red Rover. ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2011, 6:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-liberal-idea-of-the-day/579086/175 "2011-04-27T18:21:05Z")
> [@Starving\_Artist](#): > > And just where in the 1st Amendment is this little bit of exposition to be found? I can’t seem to find it. Why, yes; we’ve already established that you can’t find the exposition that somehow limits the scope of the First Amendment to political speech. We’ve already concluded that you are in error on this point, and that your arguments are worthless. All that remains is for you to admit it. That’s when your intellectual healing can begin. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2011, 6:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-liberal-idea-of-the-day/579086/176 "2011-04-27T18:49:05Z")
> [@Zeriel](#): > > But please do start another thread with that link, because that guy’s an idiot and doesn’t know the definitions of the words he is reading in a legal context. The guy is a lawyer (and a former law professor), so while I don’t agree with him either I hope you do better in the other thread. ---
**Author:** ![Zeriel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/58956e/32.png) [@Zeriel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zeriel)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2011, 7:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-liberal-idea-of-the-day/579086/177 "2011-04-27T19:01:04Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > The guy is a lawyer (and a former law professor), so while I don’t agree with him either I hope you do better in the other thread. When a guy spends time speculating about the definition of a term that is defined in Federal law, I am not particularly swayed by his supposed credentials. ---
**Author:** ![Stoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stoid/32/272_2.png) [@Stoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoid)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2011, 9:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-liberal-idea-of-the-day/579086/178 "2011-04-27T21:29:44Z")
> [@Zeriel](#): > > Start another thread if you want to continue this hijack, I’m not addressing the argument here, merely staking claim to “not a Democrat” ground. > > But please do start another thread with that link, because that guy’s an idiot and doesn’t know the definitions of the words he is reading in a legal context. [Done.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=13735811#post13735811) ---
**Author:** ![Clothahump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/51bf81/32.png) [@Clothahump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Clothahump)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2011, 7:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-liberal-idea-of-the-day/579086/179 "2011-08-31T19:00:39Z")
The Tea Party wants black Americans hanging on trees. > [@](#): > > Rep. Andre Carson, D-Ind. , speaks at a press conference about standing shoulder to shoulder against extremism of all kinds, a reaction to the House Homeland Security hearing, on Capitol Hill in Washington on Thursday, March 10, 2011. > > Democratic Rep. Andre Carson told a Miami crowd last week that the Tea Party movement would “love” to see black Americans “hanging on a tree.” > > The comment is the latest charged remark made by a member of the Congressional Black Caucus as lawmakers tour the country talking about jobs. Carson, D-Ind., lamented at the event that the Tea Party was stopping “change,” in an effort he said was reminiscent of the “Jim Crow” era. > > “Some of these folks in Congress right now would love to see us as second-class citizens,” he said. “Some of them in Congress right now with this Tea Party movement would love to see you and me … hanging on a tree.” [http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/08/31/rep-carson-tea-party-wants-to-see-black-americans-hanging-on-tree/](http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/08/31/rep-carson-tea-party-wants-to-see-black-americans-hanging-on-tree/) Wow. Just…wow. ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2011, 7:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-liberal-idea-of-the-day/579086/180 "2011-08-31T19:06:53Z")
Someone should start a poll and determine how many liberals think red-rover, dodgeball and other games should be ended. Simply declaring it as a lib idea is insufficient. I thought they were fun when i was a kid. I lean a little left, but I would not ban those games. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-liberal-idea-of-the-day/579086.md?page=8) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-liberal-idea-of-the-day/579086.md?page=10)