Maybe it’s just because I get it, but I don’t think during my political lifetime anyone has said “hemp” without everyone knowing what they meant, even people who disagree.
What exactly are you saying? Are you saying that the Indiana Religious Freedom Restoration Act was produced solely to allow people of certain beliefs to discriminate? Or are you saying that the Indiana Religious Freedom Restoration Act was produced to protect members of all religions against all kinds of government intrusions? It seems like you’re trying to have it both ways.
The original text of Indiana’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act makes no mention of homosexuality or discrimination, a fact which you seem to be already aware of. Most of its text is identical to the federal RFRA and the versions in many other states. So there is obviously no reason to believe that anyone ever intended the Indiana Religious Freedom Restoration Act to have any particular relationship to homosexual or discrimination to any greater extent that the federal RFRA or state-level RFRAs did.
Why do you love that?
In any case, I said that liberals don’t use dog whistles in post #119.
“Fair And Balanced” is widely known, and inevitably will be universally accepted as being a very thinly veiled way of saying: White People, American White People, Especially The Rich Ones, Woo-Hoooo!
Yeah, I don’t think denying that dogwhistles exist at all is exactly the same thing.
Really? Were they primarily justified and based on biblical passages? Or was the main justification and basing of slavery laws something other than biblical passages?
The most important law allowing slavery in the USA was the Constitution–prior to the 13th Amendment obviously. Important passages in the Constitution regarding slavery include Art. 1, Sec. 2; Art. Sec.9; Art. 4 Sec. 2; and Art.5. Do you have any evidence that any of these are based on biblical passages?
Other prominent laws that allowed slavery were the Fugitive Slave Acts of 1793 and 1850, the Missouri Compromise, and the Dred Scott decision, which has already played such a large role in this thread. Do you have any evidence that any of these are based on Biblical passages?
because that’s not the argument I made? Let me try again, please read carefully: Shodan seemed to be contesting that the Dred Scott case was often cited by anti-abortion activists. I provided a quote from one such activist who said that the Dred Scott case was comparison that they had used often. That was the point I was making that there is evidence that the case was relevant to anti abortion activists at the time of the debate. I hope that’s clear.
Ah come on. They have tried to disguise attempts to legalize smoking marijuana by showing that Hemp is the miracle fiber for paper, for clothing, etc, and even food! (It’s not, really, altho it’s no bad).
Of course, those attempts are really transparent.
Does this debate about Shodan, slavery and Dred Scot actually have anything to do with dog whistles?
It seems that only Democrats are looking under every rock for words/terms that they can then claim to be some kind of super-secret dog-whistle.
But if the dog-whistles are supposed to be super-secret, how come only the Democrats can hear them? Who’s super-duper-secret are they suppose to be?
How do you account for Lee Atwater, former RNC chair, admitting to dog whistles in post 75? Is he some mis-guided Democrat too?
OK. Let me see if I understand this correctly. You were not saying that Bush was using the case to reference anti-abortion support, but rather some people interpret this to be the case independent if it actually was? Is that about right?
let it go dude. I honestly think you are being intentionally obtuse. I was only providing support to one part of the equation: establishing that Dred Scott had particular relevance to the anti abortion movement. Got it?
I’ve never been intentionally obtuse in my recollection. In any event, I don’t think your point was clearly made so I was trying to suss it out. I’m fine to let it go.
Not solely. I think one of the reasons it was produced was just because of the way it sounds. These lawmakers were playing to their base and “Religious Freedom Restoration Act” just sounds so respectful and important to the bible thumping yahoos they were appealing to. And with the upcoming Supreme Court ruling on gay marriage, they were sending the message that no, you don’t have to go along with gay marriage being legal.
Sure there’s some other consequences: some business might want to discriminate against Muslims with head scarves, and that may protect the business or the customer…it’s not really clear. And Indians can smoke peyote in their religious ceremonies. But there’s many applications of the law that aren’t clear and up for interpretation.
Primarily though, they wanted to toss out some red meat to their base, and play into the outrage that their religion isn’t being respected and that’s why the world is going to hell in a handbasket.
I wonder if rainbows and equal signs are the rare liberal dog whistles. Most people would (except for the most informed of the opposition) be like “yeah, everyone should be equal!” or “wtf is this a math equation?” or in the case of rainbows “yeah, that’s really christian, strength in the face of adversity!”
“Obamacare” could definitely be considered a dog whistle term.
On the surface it means the Affordable Care Act, but to the appropriate audience it’s “liberal nanny-state and worse, a black man, are forcing freedom loving individuals to do what this black man thinks is best for them, like some kind of coddling parental role (a role which is extra insulting than usual to said individuals because, you know)”
The latter.
Nine times out of ten the term is used as a way of Othering one’s political opponents. Our Side speaks forthrightly and honestly, but Those People are all dishonest bastards, and so have to speak in code to hide their Dishonest Bastardry,
Accepting that intelligent, informed, non-evil people can have different political opinions causes cognitive dissonance, and some people like to ease that dissonance by finding the quickest and easiest way to dismiss Those People as evil. Defining their terms for them is about as quick and easy a way as there is.
I’ve never yet seen anyone whose opinion I respect build a argument around the idea. It’s intellectual laziness.
Well, that makes sense. Now I understand why Obama embraced the term!!
i’ll do you one better. “Don’t vote for Obama” is clearly a dog whistle for “Don’t vote for a black man”.
It kinda was, but now the Dems are going: “Hey wait,this is a nice way to name the AFC after President Obama, something that he’d never do himself and his enemies would castigate him for- hey thanks GOP!” :p:p:p:p