AURaptor 1,122 Posted January 19, 2015 Share Posted January 19, 2015 OK, if you want to be picky, none of them have anything to do with suppression of free speech, PERIOD. And if you want to make outrageous assertions like the above, you need to include an example or reference to back your claim. (And please define "They" while you are at it.) You're wrong, they all do. PERIOD. I gave you examples. I'm sorry if you can't follow the discussion. "THEY" = those very folks I made examples of when, I posted the said examples. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AURaptor 1,122 Posted January 19, 2015 Share Posted January 19, 2015 Ben, problem is, Rush doesn't spew hate, He does. He's a professional troll. Yes, he does. He hates communism. And for good reason. But he's not a troll. And I've already gone over what the 1st Amendment is for. No need to repeat myself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUDub 11,141 Posted January 19, 2015 Share Posted January 19, 2015 Yes, he does. He hates communism. And for good reason. But he's not a troll. FYP And I've already gone over what the 1st Amendment is for. No need to repeat myself. By your logic, neither did yours. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AURaptor 1,122 Posted January 19, 2015 Share Posted January 19, 2015 Don't "FIX" other's posts by attaching their names to things they never said , or remove things which they DID say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUDub 11,141 Posted January 19, 2015 Share Posted January 19, 2015 Don't "FIX" other's posts by attaching their names to things they never said , or remove things which they DID say. My! We are defensive! I didn't remove or add squat. See that line through the text? That's called a strike-through. Everyone can still read what you wrote. I'm glad you moderated your position on whether or not he spews hate, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AURaptor 1,122 Posted January 19, 2015 Share Posted January 19, 2015 Don't "FIX" other's posts by attaching their names to things they never said , or remove things which they DID say. My! We are defensive! I didn't remove or add squat. See that line through the text? That's called a strike-through. Everyone can still read what you wrote. Just don't do it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUDub 11,141 Posted January 19, 2015 Share Posted January 19, 2015 Don't "FIX" other's posts by attaching their names to things they never said , or remove things which they DID say. My! We are defensive! I didn't remove or add squat. See that line through the text? That's called a strike-through. Everyone can still read what you wrote. Just don't do it. Why does it bother you? Everyone that sees it realizes it's not what you said. I could understand your objection had I chopped it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homersapien 11,357 Posted January 19, 2015 Share Posted January 19, 2015 OK, if you want to be picky, none of them have anything to do with suppression of free speech, PERIOD. And if you want to make outrageous assertions like the above, you need to include an example or reference to back your claim. (And please define "They" while you are at it.) You're wrong, they all do. PERIOD. I gave you examples. I'm sorry if you can't follow the discussion. "THEY" = those very folks I made examples of when, I posted the said examples. Well, like that's just your opinion man. An opinion you can't even support with examples or references. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TitanTiger 20,472 Posted January 20, 2015 Share Posted January 20, 2015 Sorry, FREE Speech is for everyone, not just the braindead PC morons. See, i dont object to you making a fool out of yourself. That is how this Free Speech-y thing works. The braindead PC morons are exercising their right to free speech by boycotting. Actually, that isnt speech. That is the equivalent of shouting down the speaker. When you have FREE SPEECH, everyone gets to speak. The Morons get their turn, and then Maher and i get our turns. The ones that want to block someone else's free speech are those that KNOW that in an Idea Market, when all sides get to be heard, they lose. Therefore they HAVE to resort to shouting down the other sides and not allow them to speak. If the Islamic Extremists just wanted to have a political chat, then that would be fine and indeed proactive. When they want to silence others, that is what it means to deprive others of their Free Speech.The quote often attributed to Voltaire is correct: "I may disagree with what you say, but i will defend to the death YOUR RIGHT TO SAY IT." When you are shouting down, or hampering in any way, the rights of another, then you are by definition limiting another's Free Speech. It is beyond sad that this has to even be discussed on this forum. What you are advocating is that only those with the mob on their side should be allowed to speak at all. Is that your definition of Fee Speech? Really? Mob Rule=Free Speech? It is a mockery of intellect for yall to call yourself "Liberals." So those who boycotted the Dixie Chicks were morons? Yes. Yes they were. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUDub 11,141 Posted January 20, 2015 Share Posted January 20, 2015 Sorry, FREE Speech is for everyone, not just the braindead PC morons. See, i dont object to you making a fool out of yourself. That is how this Free Speech-y thing works. The braindead PC morons are exercising their right to free speech by boycotting. Actually, that isnt speech. That is the equivalent of shouting down the speaker. When you have FREE SPEECH, everyone gets to speak. The Morons get their turn, and then Maher and i get our turns. The ones that want to block someone else's free speech are those that KNOW that in an Idea Market, when all sides get to be heard, they lose. Therefore they HAVE to resort to shouting down the other sides and not allow them to speak. If the Islamic Extremists just wanted to have a political chat, then that would be fine and indeed proactive. When they want to silence others, that is what it means to deprive others of their Free Speech.The quote often attributed to Voltaire is correct: "I may disagree with what you say, but i will defend to the death YOUR RIGHT TO SAY IT." When you are shouting down, or hampering in any way, the rights of another, then you are by definition limiting another's Free Speech. It is beyond sad that this has to even be discussed on this forum. What you are advocating is that only those with the mob on their side should be allowed to speak at all. Is that your definition of Fee Speech? Really? Mob Rule=Free Speech? It is a mockery of intellect for yall to call yourself "Liberals." So those who boycotted the Dixie Chicks were morons? Yes. Yes they were. I was wondering if you would weigh in, Titan. Do you believe Rush's right to free speech is being taken away in any tangible sense? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TitanTiger 20,472 Posted January 20, 2015 Share Posted January 20, 2015 I find it ironic that liberals would use the very tool they denounce when conservatives use it effectively to get a program off the air. I also find it ironic that conservatives would denounce a tactic they used so effectively before. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUDub 11,141 Posted January 20, 2015 Share Posted January 20, 2015 I find it ironic that liberals would use the very tool they denounce when conservatives use it effectively to get a program off the air. I also find it ironic that conservatives would denounce a tactic they used so effectively before. Thank you, Titan. So no objection besides the fact that you think the boycotts are stupid? If so, I can accept that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TitanTiger 20,472 Posted January 20, 2015 Share Posted January 20, 2015 I find it ironic that liberals would use the very tool they denounce when conservatives use it effectively to get a program off the air. I also find it ironic that conservatives would denounce a tactic they used so effectively before. Thank you, Titan. So no objection besides the fact that you think the boycotts are stupid? If so, I can accept that. I don't think all boycotts are stupid. But I don't think most offenses rise to the level of being worthy of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AURaptor 1,122 Posted January 20, 2015 Share Posted January 20, 2015 I find it ironic that liberals would use the very tool they denounce when conservatives use it effectively to get a program off the air. I also find it ironic that conservatives would denounce a tactic they used so effectively before. When have the conservatives been effective in silencing anyone via boycotts ? Don't say Dixie Chicks, because their music was never an issue. They continued to sing, continued to tour, did they not ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AURaptor 1,122 Posted January 20, 2015 Share Posted January 20, 2015 OK, if you want to be picky, none of them have anything to do with suppression of free speech, PERIOD. And if you want to make outrageous assertions like the above, you need to include an example or reference to back your claim. (And please define "They" while you are at it.) You're wrong, they all do. PERIOD. I gave you examples. I'm sorry if you can't follow the discussion. "THEY" = those very folks I made examples of when, I posted the said examples. Well, like that's just your opinion man. An opinion you can't even support with examples or references. I've already supported it, many times over, in this thread. Do YOU defend every opinion you have ? Wheat or Rye bread ? DEFEND IT ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUDub 11,141 Posted January 20, 2015 Share Posted January 20, 2015 I find it ironic that liberals would use the very tool they denounce when conservatives use it effectively to get a program off the air. I also find it ironic that conservatives would denounce a tactic they used so effectively before. Thank you, Titan. So no objection besides the fact that you think the boycotts are stupid? If so, I can accept that. I don't think all boycotts are stupid. But I don't think most offenses rise to the level of being worthy of them. My assumption was confined to this and the case with the Dixie Chicks. Thanks again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TitanTiger 20,472 Posted January 20, 2015 Share Posted January 20, 2015 I find it ironic that liberals would use the very tool they denounce when conservatives use it effectively to get a program off the air. I also find it ironic that conservatives would denounce a tactic they used so effectively before. When have the conservatives been effective in silencing anyone via boycotts ? Don't say Dixie Chicks, because their music was never an issue. They continued to sing, continued to tour, did they not ? The American Family Association has claimed many a victory through boycotts for conservative causes. If boycotts weren't effective at all, conservatives would have given up on them long ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TitanTiger 20,472 Posted January 20, 2015 Share Posted January 20, 2015 I find it ironic that liberals would use the very tool they denounce when conservatives use it effectively to get a program off the air. I also find it ironic that conservatives would denounce a tactic they used so effectively before. Thank you, Titan. So no objection besides the fact that you think the boycotts are stupid? If so, I can accept that. I don't think all boycotts are stupid. But I don't think most offenses rise to the level of being worthy of them. My assumption was confined to this and the case with the Dixie Chicks. Thanks again. I'd say neither boycott was infringing on free speech, yet neither were worthy of boycotting anyone to begin with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUDub 11,141 Posted January 20, 2015 Share Posted January 20, 2015 I find it ironic that liberals would use the very tool they denounce when conservatives use it effectively to get a program off the air. I also find it ironic that conservatives would denounce a tactic they used so effectively before. Thank you, Titan. So no objection besides the fact that you think the boycotts are stupid? If so, I can accept that. I don't think all boycotts are stupid. But I don't think most offenses rise to the level of being worthy of them. My assumption was confined to this and the case with the Dixie Chicks. Thanks again. I'd say neither boycott was infringing on free speech, yet neither were worthy of boycotting anyone to begin with. Do not disagree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DKW 86 7,419 Posted January 20, 2015 Author Share Posted January 20, 2015 If there is no Free Speech for all, you are just waiting to be shouted down in the next beer hall putsch. The Nazi's endorse this tactic... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUDub 11,141 Posted January 20, 2015 Share Posted January 20, 2015 If there is no Free Speech for all, you are just waiting to be shouted down in the next beer hall putsch. The Nazi's endorse this tactic... Godwin's Law confirmed again. Took 11 pages. I was hoping you had figured out this free speech thing by now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cptau 169 Posted January 20, 2015 Share Posted January 20, 2015 What happen to the Dixie chicks was that their fan base left them. A real direct boycott by fans meaning lower record sales, cancelled concerts, with sponsors dropping later. If their fans had stayed, the sponsors would have. What happen to Limbaugh was a organized targeted effort by certain groups to get his national sponsors and local sponsors at local radio station to drop their sponsorship. Several of them did drop out because they feared any negative publicity. Many businesses are afraid of losing a small percentage of sales. His fans really never left him. Are both efforts free speech, yes, but a small well funded group of political activists went after Limbaugh. The Dixie chicks boycott was grass roots. Limbaugh is still around with old and new sponsors and his fan base, the Dixie Chicks never really recovered their earlier success. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DKW 86 7,419 Posted January 20, 2015 Author Share Posted January 20, 2015 If there is no Free Speech for all, you are just waiting to be shouted down in the next beer hall putsch. The Nazi's endorse this tactic... Godwin's Law confirmed again. Took 11 pages. I was hoping you had figured out this free speech thing by now. I am not the one having the problem defining free speech. Sadly, you are as lost as a goose on this one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TexasTiger 12,828 Posted January 20, 2015 Share Posted January 20, 2015 What happen to the Dixie chicks was that their fan base left them. A real direct boycott by fans meaning lower record sales, cancelled concerts, with sponsors dropping later. If their fans had stayed, the sponsors would have. What happen to Limbaugh was a organized targeted effort by certain groups to get his national sponsors and local sponsors at local radio station to drop their sponsorship. Several of them did drop out because they feared any negative publicity. Many businesses are afraid of losing a small percentage of sales. His fans really never left him. Are both efforts free speech, yes, but a small well funded group of political activists went after Limbaugh. The Dixie chicks boycott was grass roots. Limbaugh is still around with old and new sponsors and his fan base, the Dixie Chicks never really recovered their earlier success. Dixie Chicks boycott was part fan base, part corporate. They couldn't get on country radio anymore due to corporate decisions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexava 6,973 Posted January 20, 2015 Share Posted January 20, 2015 What happen to the Dixie chicks was that their fan base left them. A real direct boycott by fans meaning lower record sales, cancelled concerts, with sponsors dropping later. If their fans had stayed, the sponsors would have. What happen to Limbaugh was a organized targeted effort by certain groups to get his national sponsors and local sponsors at local radio station to drop their sponsorship. Several of them did drop out because they feared any negative publicity. Many businesses are afraid of losing a small percentage of sales. His fans really never left him. Are both efforts free speech, yes, but a small well funded group of political activists went after Limbaugh. The Dixie chicks boycott was grass roots. Limbaugh is still around with old and new sponsors and his fan base, the Dixie Chicks never really recovered their earlier success. and neither were arrested or charged or accused of a crime. Which nullifies the use of "freedom of speech " to describe what happened. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.