Ok, this is not fair. There is a lot more going on now than there was during the midterms. There was really only one story: the Republicans were going to lose substantially. There was no presidential election to overshadow nearly everything. I am far more engaged with that than I am with the conventions, which are at best an exercise in collective retardation.
This isn’t just a matter of whose ox is getting gored. Two years ago, it was believed by many that the Republicans had abused their majority and were about to be delivered a comeuppance. The convention regulations played quite nicely into that story. Now, it’s just not much of a big deal. So yeah, I didn’t notice it. Sorry.
It would be helpful if you’d dig up a single thread from that time so we could have something to look directly at, instead of relying on your and our vague memories of how folks posted about incidents back then.
It’d also help if you didn’t imply that people were lying about their motivations or compare them to depraved sexual practices. Maybe you meant for that post to be in the Pit?
Ok. That is probably a more straightforward question. 4 years ago, to my recollection, it was the first time “free speech zones” were imposed. Almost four years ago today, they were upheld by a federal judge. If this is the new reality, do you really expect people to get as worked up over it?
No, it doesn’t, but a lot of times it seems like you play the “Democrat” card to have it both ways - you can claim to be not toeing the party line, when basically you are, just not for the party you’re claiming membership of.
Right. It’s because we (“royal we”, 'cause whatever you’re describing has nothing to do with anything I believe or anything I’ve posted on these boards) notice these stories and just hope they’ll blow over and no discerning conservative will find out about them, thus exposing us for the partisan hacks we are. It couldn’t possibly be because we never came across the story in the first place - even when it was a Yahoo news item that was 2 days old! - but only because we are so obviously full of shit. Nice tactic of negating our opinions by assigning them merely reactionary value, too - they couldn’t possibly be sincere, but simply a way to save face after the all-encompassing “Gotcha!” you’ve leveled. That seems fair. It’s great how you accuse the other side of being blindly loyal to their party, yet you paint with the same kind of broad brush you’re denouncing.
Again, I assume you’re using the royal “you”, though why you’re using this dodge when addressing me specifically is suspect. I defy you to find where I’ve been loyal to my party over my ideals. Especially since I’m neither a Republican or Democrat (see? You’re not the only one who can have their cake and eat it too on this bullshit level of debate), and haven’t been for as long as I’ve been on these boards, I believe. I have never said one side is good and the other evil, and I’d be a fool to believe such 18-year-old-level claptrap (and there are plenty of fools in both major parties who are guilty of such). However, you seem to me to be guilty of everything you’re accusing liberals (Democrats? I can’t even tell who your hatred’s directed at at this point) of doing. You just give yourself the out of not self-identifying as a Republican when you go on your anti-Dem tirades and think it makes you untouchable. In reality, it’s pretty transparent.
Bwah? I’m supposed to comb the news for articles on all sorts of subjects, and compare them to coverage on this board of similar news items from years ago, then post on them? And if I don’t I’m some kind of hypocrite? Sorry, I don’t have the time to waste on that shit. Maybe you do. Better yet, maybe you have someone in mind as designated thread-opener on a given subject. If so, please don’t keep us in suspense.
A better tactic might be to just go ahead and post on the subject you think needs to be treated to a debate, and if someone who actually posts shows signs of hypocracy, call 'em out on that.
My point is that while I can’t prove to you what I have or haven’t been reading (and your claims to know, absent your having gotten a new job in Homeland Security, which has gotten everything else wrong, are of course bullshit as well), there seems to be no question that if I had been getting my news from a typical middle-American, non-elitist newspaper like the Baltimore Sun, this story wouldn’t be old news to me.
And finally, I picked the Baltimore Sun because I figure it’s the newspaper you’re most likely to read, and if they had printed a story on this some time ago, you actually might have seen it and would have been able to tell me I was wrong. I figured I could afford to tilt the board that much in your favor.
IOW, “I’m not really a Democrat, but I register as one in Maryland because otherwise I don’t really have a say in things.”
If that’s not a fair interpretation, please explain why.
And in the same post:
[My numeration, hence the brackets.]
It’s time to ask the musical question: when was this mythical time, and just how old were you then?
Because I’m several years older than you, Weirddave, and I don’t see a time between my early teens and now that the Dems were less vulnerable to your second charge than they are now, and plenty of times when they’ve been more vulnerable to it. I think I’m on solid ground when I say your second criticism was more true before Clinton’s “Sistah Souljah” moment than it has been since. And that was 16 years ago.
And the first one? If you were old enough to remember the Democratic Party as it was before FDR, you might have a point. You’re not.
In an attempt to be helpful, here are some threads I found.
Baldwin’s original Free Speech Zones"; WTF country is this? in the Pit from 2002, talking about the President’s use of selective criteria to determine whose messages should be removed to another zone and which could stay.
This is probably the thread Weirddave is drawing his memories of members of this board defending the practice of sequestering dissenters. I’d recommend reading Baldwin’s thread first because it is referenced a lot in this one. Liberal’s thread is listed as four pages, but the last two pages are largely sidetracked into a discussion of Libertarianism, so I’d recommend skimming them to get to the contents which are relevant to this discussion. A few selected quotes, generally targeting those who have a reputation on the boards as “left/democrat”, from this thread may be apropos here.
This nonsense is way out of line for this Forum. And don’t give me any crap about a “royal” or “editorial” you; it is a direct attack on posters in this thread in language that you can leave in the Pit or stop posting in GD.
The big three; time, place, and manner. When such restrictions meet the rational basis test, but never simply because of content unless that content will cause, or has as its purpose, “imminent lawless action” (see Brandenburg v. Ohio), same as speech.
Some of the relevant case law here.
Wait a minute, how does this work? I wrote a post, reviewed it before hitting submit, realized “Hey, some of this this sounds like a personal attack, I better make clear that it’s not”, yet you somehow know better? Do moderating hats come with mind reading devices now?
That’s incredibly naive. There are plenty of laws abridging free speech, with lots of case history. Read the decisions in the cases US v. Schenck and Brandenburg v. Ohio. I think you’ll find that speech is limited. There are cases regarding limitations on the other rights enshrined in the 1st Amendment as well. The 1st Amendment says that “Congress shall make no law”, and since it’s been incorporated the states are bound by that as well, but the Supreme Court is not, and they have put limitations on all of the provisions of the 1st Amendment.
That decision left “reasonable restrictions” on the table, so it wasn’t absolute, either. The Court did not nullify the National Forearms Act of 1934, the Gun Control Act of 1968, or the Firearm Owners Protection Act (ha!) of 1986. There are plenty of restrictions on gun ownership.
You didn’t really think that the 1st Amendment was absolute, did you?
I’m lost here. I’ve never heard of the usage “royal you”. I looked online at usage guides and googled for it, but I can’t find anything helpful. Could you explain what it means here? The only thing I can think of is using it as the reverse of the royal “we.” The Royal “We” usage implies all the people personified in one. Thus one could speak for many. The reverse usage would be to speak of one person but have the words be meant to apply to many, at least to my mind. I’m not sure why this would be necessary since English has grammar forms capable of addressing the second person plural(you all, all of you, etc.) and the “royal you”, as I understand its usage, would be entirely redundant. If you meant to use the second person plural, surely you could have used it, so I’m confused. Since the “royal you” doesn’t seem to have a defined usage in the common language we’re all using, I’d like to know how you meant it. Is it an exact analogue to the second person plural, or something else?