FAKE NEWS EXPOSED: A Service of PoliticalChat.com

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by Dondilion

Some of what is now a majority view were at times a minority.

I do not watch Tucker as a regimen. I only check him when Youtube indicates he has something on geopolitics. In this area, he is an important voice because he is willing to say what others are afraid or unable to do. By and large, he argues from the standpoint of the core interest of the United States.
His message: The war machine has captured congress and the MSM.

Here's your boy spewing some nonsense about MSNBC promoting genocide here in the US. Is that a core interest of the United States?

[GChief]

Being from Ohio and going back a few times a year to see pops. I can guarantee you I see the Stars and Bars plenty. Even have moron family members that see the need to fly it, all of our grandfathers that fought in the Civil War fought for the Union, they can't even claim the "Heritage" thing.

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by Chicks

A quick Google search shows plenty of redneck flags (and worse) flying in Michigan.

https://www.deadlinedetroit.com/arti..._lansing_rally

https://www.chicagotribune.com/coron...t6q-story.html

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...nfederate-flag

https://wwmt.com/news/local/bill-int...apitol-grounds

...and many more, proving Whell hasn't done his homework, as always. (the dog at my homework!)

So, a bill was introduced to prohibit the Stars and Bars at the Michigan State Capitol because people were upset about its prominent use at Capitol protests and Whell claims that the Confederate flag is never flown in Michigan?

Keep in mind that Michigan's Capitol building is walking distance to where he went to college.

[whell]

Originally Posted by Pio1980

In what sort of "free state" is compulsory loyalty extortion by peer pressure necessary? At a public event as a price of attendance? Allegiance should be voluntary by attraction, not as a loyalty oath compelled by populist extortion.
Respect is a two-way street that is earned, not compelled by force.

Apparently, you've never heard of political correctness and the cancel culture.

Or maybe Myorkas' attempt to create a Gobbels-esque alternative fact factory with their proposed Disinformation Governance Board.

Or The People's Republic of California threatening to punish doctors who practice medicine in a matter that is inconsistent with the party line?

Suggestion: sure, be mad at Trump if you want. But channel your angry energy into a more productive pursuit. For example, a recent NY Times survey found that most folks beleive their freedom of speech is at risk.

The poll found that 84 percent of adults said it is a “very serious” or “somewhat serious” problem that some Americans do not speak freely in everyday situations because of fear of retaliation or harsh criticism.

Also this:

Consider this finding from our poll: Fifty-five percent of respondents said that they had held their tongue over the past year because they were concerned about retaliation or harsh criticism. Women were more likely to report doing so — 61 percent, compared to 49 percent of men. Older respondents were less likely to have done so than other age groups. Republicans (58 percent) were slightly more likely to have held their tongues than Democrats (52 percent) or independents (56 percent).

At the same time, 22 percent of adults reported that they had retaliated against or were harshly critical of someone over something he or she said. Adults 18 to 34 years old were far more likely to have done so than older Americans; liberals were more likely to have done so than moderates or conservatives.

Here's how I translate this (your mileage may vary): Free speech is under attack, and in particular political speech, which the First Amendment was specifically intended to protect. For all the bleating from the left about "fascism" and "authoritarianism", it's far more likely that folks on the left, particularly young adults, will act out in ways that squelch free speech.

This kind of intolerance has no place in this country. You and I can disagree on this forum and that's not a bad thing. Political speech used to be meant to educate, or change hearts and minds.

There has always been a subset of folks who take that speech to an extreme. However, there's now an increased willingness to act out against those who disagree with a particular point of view. That willingness is increasingly manifest in the actions of our political class, and even among corporations/employers who are afraid of becoming the targets of those who are willing to act out.

Some of the examples are above. Others include:

Connecticut Set to Enact Ban on Employer-Sponsored Meetings: https://www.littler.com/publication-...sored-meetings. Sure, this is a law designed to counter employers who speak against unions in the workplace. However, the law doesn't confine itself to speech about unions.

The Senior Curator at MOMA was fired a couple years ago for responding to an employee's racially charged question in a non-politically correct manner: https://news.artnet.com/art-world/ga...sfmoma-1893964 Should he have used more appropriate words? Sure. Did he deserve to be fired? Employers used to respond to these situations by requiring training and using progressive discipline. However, the complainants were not to be denied their prize of a scalp:

“Gary’s removal from SFMOMA is non-negotiable,” the petition’s authors wrote. “Considering his lengthy tenure at this institution, we ask just how long have his toxic white supremacist beliefs regarding race and equity directed his position curating the content of the museum?”

This for using the term "reverse discrimination".

I fear this intolerance is getting worse instead of better, particularly with younger folks. Believe it or not, though my kids generally know my heart on most matters, I don't demean them or attack them if they disagree. I encourage them to look at the facts, avoid the emotionalism that some folks inject into certain discussions, and make up their minds for themselves. But they have told me on many occasions that they don't dare voice their opinions on some topics for fear of being ostracized.

So, if there's a place to channel energy, it's to assure that free speech is preserved. What I take away from the survey and examples above is that tolerance of differing opinions is not a lesson that we're our yound people. There's no requirement to agree with everyone else, just as there's no need to muzzle those who don't agreee with anyone who doesn't agree.

Sometimes respecting someone who disagrees with you isn't easy, but I think we need to spend more time spreading the gospel that respecting folks with reasonable disagreements is always the best course.

[whell]

Originally Posted by Mark B

That is absolutely not true.

The truth is that the crime of extortion by Fear now includes threatening "To report his, her, or their immigration status or suspected immigration status."

CHAPTER 7. Extortion [518 - 527] ( Chapter 7 enacted 1872. )

519.
Fear, such as will constitute extortion, may be induced by a threat of any of the following:
1. To do an unlawful injury to the person or property of the individual threatened or of a third person.
2. To accuse the individual threatened, or a relative of his or her, or a member of his or her family, of a crime.
3. To expose, or to impute to him, her, or them a deformity, disgrace, or crime.
4. To expose a secret affecting him, her, or them.
5. To report his, her, or their immigration status or suspected immigration status.

I disagree. The language of the law CODIFIES "fear" as saying that you may report someone's immigration status. The language of the law is designed to have a chilling effect on anyone who might report that status. This is all part in parcel of CA's efforts to advance its status as a "sanctuary state".

[whell]

Originally Posted by Chicks

A quick Google search shows plenty of redneck flags (and worse) flying in Michigan.

https://www.deadlinedetroit.com/arti..._lansing_rally

https://www.chicagotribune.com/coron...t6q-story.html

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...nfederate-flag

https://wwmt.com/news/local/bill-int...apitol-grounds

...and many more, proving Whell hasn't done his homework, as always. (the dog at my homework!)

Your 4 posts are about a single event - the COVID protest at the MI capitol. Did a couple of ass holes show up with Confederate flags? Yep. Are Confederate flags a common sight in MI? Nope.

[whell]

Originally Posted by finnbow

So, a bill was introduced to prohibit the Stars and Bars at the Michigan State Capitol because people were upset about its prominent use at Capitol protests and Whell claims that the Confederate flag is never flown in Michigan?

Keep in mind that Michigan's Capitol building is walking distance to where he went to college.

Yep. A couple jerks showed up at a protest at the Capitol over Gov Whitmer's authoritarian lockdown policies. Apparently, to you guys, those jerks constitute a movement.

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by whell

Yep. A couple jerks showed up at a protest at the Capitol over Gov Whitmer's authoritarian lockdown policies. Apparently, to you guys, those jerks constitute a movement.

They most certainly are part of a movement, the same movement for which that clown from Delaware pranced through the US Capitol with a Confederate flag. The movement is called MAGA and maybe you're too close to it to see it.

[Pio1980]

Originally Posted by whell

Apparently, you've never heard of political correctness and the cancel culture.

Or maybe Myorkas' attempt to create a Gobbels-esque alternative fact factory with their proposed Disinformation Governance Board.

Or The People's Republic of California threatening to punish doctors who practice medicine in a matter that is inconsistent with the party line?

Suggestion: sure, be mad at Trump if you want. But channel your angry energy into a more productive pursuit. For example, a recent NY Times survey found that most folks beleive their freedom of speech is at risk.

The poll found that 84 percent of adults said it is a “very serious” or “somewhat serious” problem that some Americans do not speak freely in everyday situations because of fear of retaliation or harsh criticism.

Also this:

Consider this finding from our poll: Fifty-five percent of respondents said that they had held their tongue over the past year because they were concerned about retaliation or harsh criticism. Women were more likely to report doing so — 61 percent, compared to 49 percent of men. Older respondents were less likely to have done so than other age groups. Republicans (58 percent) were slightly more likely to have held their tongues than Democrats (52 percent) or independents (56 percent).

At the same time, 22 percent of adults reported that they had retaliated against or were harshly critical of someone over something he or she said. Adults 18 to 34 years old were far more likely to have done so than older Americans; liberals were more likely to have done so than moderates or conservatives.

Here's how I translate this (your mileage may vary): Free speech is under attack, and in particular political speech, which the First Amendment was specifically intended to protect. For all the bleating from the left about "fascism" and "authoritarianism", it's far more likely that folks on the left, particularly young adults, will act out in ways that squelch free speech.

This kind of intolerance has no place in this country. You and I can disagree on this forum and that's not a bad thing. Political speech used to be meant to educate, or change hearts and minds.

There has always been a subset of folks who take that speech to an extreme. However, there's now an increased willingness to act out against those who disagree with a particular point of view. That willingness is increasingly manifest in the actions of our political class, and even among corporations/employers who are afraid of becoming the targets of those who are willing to act out.

Some of the examples are above. Others include:

Connecticut Set to Enact Ban on Employer-Sponsored Meetings: https://www.littler.com/publication-...sored-meetings. Sure, this is a law designed to counter employers who speak against unions in the workplace. However, the law doesn't confine itself to speech about unions.

The Senior Curator at MOMA was fired a couple years ago for responding to an employee's racially charged question in a non-politically correct manner: https://news.artnet.com/art-world/ga...sfmoma-1893964 Should he have used more appropriate words? Sure. Did he deserve to be fired? Employers used to respond to these situations by requiring training and using progressive discipline. However, the complainants were not to be denied their prize of a scalp:

“Gary’s removal from SFMOMA is non-negotiable,” the petition’s authors wrote. “Considering his lengthy tenure at this institution, we ask just how long have his toxic white supremacist beliefs regarding race and equity directed his position curating the content of the museum?”

This for using the term "reverse discrimination".

I fear this intolerance is getting worse instead of better, particularly with younger folks. Believe it or not, though my kids generally know my heart on most matters, I don't demean them or attack them if they disagree. I encourage them to look at the facts, avoid the emotionalism that some folks inject into certain discussions, and make up their minds for themselves. But they have told me on many occasions that they don't dare voice their opinions on some topics for fear of being ostracized.

So, if there's a place to channel energy, it's to assure that free speech is preserved. What I take away from the survey and examples above is that tolerance of differing opinions is not a lesson that we're our yound people. There's no requirement to agree with everyone else, just as there's no need to muzzle those who don't agreee with anyone who doesn't agree.

Sometimes respecting someone who disagrees with you isn't easy, but I think we need to spend more time spreading the gospel that respecting folks with reasonable disagreements is always the best course.

You've certainly extrapolated several paragraphs of your own agenda from what I did NOT say or imply with your considerably extensive reply to what I did not say.

"Cancel culture" is simply accountability in action, actions have reactive consequences. When a business presents support for a cause I find disagreeable, I find no obligation to support that business with my custom. Businesses that f.I. displays tea party, rebel regalia, or MAGA trash as their right of expression loses my financial support as my right of expression in response. That's how it works, as neither of us are a Federal entity subject to the 1st Amendment restrictions.

Pardon me for refusing to follow your 'disinformation is free speech' flock.

Again;
"Cancel culture" is simply accountability in action. When a business excersizes it's 1st amendment right to present support for causes I find objectionable, I exercise mine by not giving them financial support with my patronage. That's how accountability works, actions have reactive consequences.
Individuals and privately held enterprises are not Federal entities subject to the 1st Amendment restrictions. An individual or commercial business may take a stand, but should expect to deal with reactive consequences.
Try reading the first sentence of the 1st amendment.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

[RickeyM]

Originally Posted by Pio1980

You've certainly extrapolated several paragraphs of your own agenda from what I did NOT say or imply with your considerably extensive reply to what I did not say.
"Cancel culture" is simply accountability in action, actions have reactive consequences. When a business presents support for a cause I find disagreeable, I find no obligation to support that business with my custom. Businesses that f.I. displays Trump trash as their right of expression loses my financial support as my right of expression in response. That's how it works, as neither of us are a Federal entity subject to the 1st Amendment restrictions.

Pardon me for refusing to follow your 'disinformation is free speech' flock.

Again;
"Cancel culture" is simply accountability in action. When a business excersize it's 1sy amendment right to present support for causes I find objectionable, I exercise mine by not giving them financial support with my patronage. That's how accountability works, actions have reactive consequences.
Individuals and privately held enterprises are not Federal entities subject to the 1st Amendment restrictions. An individual or commercial business may take a stand, but should expect to deal with reactive consequences.
Try reading the first sentence of the 1st amendment.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

That's our boy. Mister "If you can't dazzle 'em with brilliance, baffle 'em with bullshit" except nobody here but MAGAmorons is buying it.