cjd5050

Members+
  • Content Count

    846
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

687 Excellent

About cjd5050

  • Rank
    Hamlet

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Charlotte

Recent Profile Visitors

1607 profile views
  1. This word is the problem. You think it's OK to prevent speech because something might happen in the future or something happened in the past. That's not clear and present danger. That's wrong. Not allowing people the freedom of speech to 'preclude' potential violence from happening is suppression and that is exactly what has been suggested be done in this thread. The conversation is about if suppression should happen or not. It's not about the actual suppression of speech. Mostly because 'the law' understands the law. I can absolutely compare these hateful groups to each other. Hate is hate and violence is violence and it doesn't matter if there is 200 years of history or 2 years to me.
  2. So when Black Lives Matter and other supporters came to Charlotte to protest and those protests turned to riots, are you suggesting that BLM should not have been allowed to protest in the first place? Because using your logic (without a political bias) it reads as if you're saying freedom of speech needs to be limited when civil order isn't possible. The same can be said for Antifa and you're free to go research the violence there. Just search Antifa + Portland. I personally don't agree with anything the KKK, BLM, Antifa or any other extreme organization thinks but I don't want to live in a place where those that I oppose have their voice suppressed because some don't have the emotional wherewithal to disagree with their views without turning to counter violence. I also am a full supporter to law and order and I agree that once a group moves past peaceful protest and to destructive behavior they should not only be stopped but they should be dealt with by law enforcement to the fullest extent. I think the difference is some here want to remove the freedom of speech on the grounds that it's possible or probable for destructive behavior and that's wrong for many reasons. The biggest is that once you cross that line in the sand, hypocrites or intolerant voices can suppress others under the guise of public safety. Which, unless I am wrong, is what you're suggesting. The freedom to stand in public and express your views is not the same as the freedom to do whatever you want because you have views. So in the case of the RNC, I don't have any issue with a highly controlled free speech zone or zones. I don't have a problem with the city denying protests that would have movement and create unnecessary risk to the public at large. But this is where I stop.
  3. Which is exactly how I feel about some of your comments. I didn't agree with them, didn't like them and didn't see the need to respond...so I just downvoted. We did exactly the same thing but you feel the need to complain about the very actions you take. So I pointed out your hypocrisy. Calling someone a hypocrite is not an insult. It's an observation. Calling someone an asshole is an insult. You asked if it was a good idea to allow the freedom of speech. I said it was because I don't want hypocrisy to rule what can and can't be said. Since your a hypocrite, I don't want someone like you having a say over what others say. Especially since you're unable to see the difference.
  4. Sniff. Watch out, there are some here who are really sensitive about words. I on the other hand fully support your right to your opinion.
  5. I think Freedom of Speech is a right and it's not always pretty. I also didn't suggest that any group be allowed to march through town. I absolutely don't want people like you controlling what can and can't be said as that's a very dangerous slope. This again? Remember when you whined about me downvoting you without leaving a comment and I then showed you how you did the same exact thing before and continue to do? You can take my downvotes any way you like but your hypocrisy is honestly impressive. Sad but still impressive. The insulting that goes on in this forum is widespread but the majority of it is to directed to people who are not here. I guess it's easier for cowards to fight shadows and all. Your biggest challenge is that you actually think of yourself as more righteous than you actually are and if you're uncomfortable with a direct reply to your words then I am not sure what to say.
  6. Heh. So you're for freedom of speech...that you agree with. That's not how it works. Well, that's how it worked in some places in the past but I'm not sure you understand that fully. History is our best teacher... Freedom of speech is not free from consequences but I sure as hell don't want to live in a society where a group of people armed with nothing but loud voices and powered by political correctness gets to decide what can and can't be talked about in public. If someone wants to say racist, anti-gay remarks or anti-police remarks you want that to be on the biggest stage and under the brightest spotlight. That's how you end evil. You expose it rather than pushing it away. You confront it rather than trying to down it out. I think if white supremacists or antifa or the blue man group want to rally, let them. Don't allow them to cover their face. Put them in a dedicated area. Build a stage. Setup a spotlight and turn on the camera.
  7. People like you are not interested in discussion.
  8. So we're comparing a State legislature to Clinton? Comical. Team Clinton is home to Huma and Anthony 'I want to send my d*ck picks to underage girls' Weiner and Harvey 'suck my d*ck for a part' Weinstein. That's not only the party of Clinton but her freaking inner circle. This is the same woman who let her husband ram a cigar up an intern...and stayed with him...because that's where the power was. The very same people who are getting into a lather about Trump saying 'grab her by the p*ssy' are the very same disingenuous and hypocritical slim that standby liberals who do the same or worse. Then...oh this is the best part...then when she runs for President she runs on a 'woman's power' pitch and freaking morons (many here) buy into 'I'm with her' all of the way and look the other way at all of her transgressions. That's your party. That's your problem.
  9. There is a difference between legal and illegal immigration. It takes 5 to 10 years to legally gain a visa to the US on average. We have people all around the globe currently in line and waiting their turn. How is it un-American to fully support, want to expand and even streamline the process of legal immigration, while at the same time, not be in favor of illegal immigration? Why should someone from Latin America get preferential treatment than someone from Asia or Africa?
  10. I don't watch FOX. I don't subscribe to cable. I also don't like to be spoon fed my news by broadcasters regardless of lean. Maybe that's your cup of coffee. You really should think of a better hand than 'what you're saying is on Fox so I can dismiss it'....but I don't expect much more from you.
  11. So, in other words, you don't care about the issue as long as it's someone who agrees with you politically. You may be too arrogant to understand this but that's exactly what you're saying. It's pathetic.
  12. Cities dropped out of hosting the event because they didn't want the violent protests that happen in places like Portland and Seattle but would have the risk of being 10X for the convention. What I am saying is the people who do protest are not going to go away. The polarization is here to stay because to the fringe a-holes anything to the left or right of them is wrong...even if those people are in the middle.
  13. First off, many of the images that melt snowflakes like you are from 2014 when Barry was in office. Is Barry a fascist as well? I'll understand if you can't do the mental gymnastics needed to excuse the actions of the previous administration but hold the current accountable. The full picture doesn't matter to people like you. At best, you like to make the quip. At worst, you like the excuse to be an intolerant a-hole. But those are issues you need to work out. This doesn't excuse the actions of the current administration. Rather, it just shows that people are too stupid and too focused on validating their feelings to seek the truth. It shouldn't happen. Full Stop. So while I don't think the far left is out of bounds in protesting these actions...I do take their outrage and your outrage with a grain of salt because it's manufactured, ignorant and has the depth of a puddle.
  14. Get the hell out of here with that crap. Nowhere did I claim that but thank you for helping me prove how some people can take a rational comment or view and have the premise ignored and replied to with a curt and unproductive response. Well done guy! What I am saying is the political divide exists because there are a-holes on both sides. Some might not be able to see this but that's usually because there are not mirrors everywhere. There is a level of aggressiveness and a lack of civility that goes way beyond Trump. This goes both ways of course but the fact remains that our societies DNA has been changed. Civility has been under attack for years and it's completely gone now. The previous comment from @Crucial_Infra was suggesting that the only reason the hostility exists today is a response to just Trump and that when Trump is gone this hostility will go away. That's pretty naive I feel. Hating on 'Trump' is too good of a fundraiser and too good of a rallying cry for it to go away. Whoever is put on the ticket on either side is going to face the same going forward. We just don't know the names yet but the names don't matter. It's just too easy and commonplace to be a jerk and not bother to consider a view from someone who doesn't think exactly like you....as you have so wonderfully demonstrated.
  15. I wish I could agree but, sadly, I think that the vitriol against Trump is not going to go away once Trump exits stage left. While he makes it very, very easy to hate him a lot of his policies or views are shared by many on the right. For example, anyone that suggests the US should enforce our immigration policies, allow for legal immigration and the use of ICE to deport illegal immigrants is going to be called a racist, nazi or whatever term is being used now. Or anyone that supports police is somehow racist and a nazi for supporting terrorists. For what you think to happen actually be possible would require all the voices on the left to be rational, sensible and non-aggressive. Since that's not a reality....the hate and vitriol that exists is here to stay I fear.