US Elections 2016

[Namutree]

 

She has a Black Panthers avatar, quotes Malcolm X and yet calls herself a liberal

 

 

She's an idiot who only quotes Malcom X to seem "progressive". (considering progressives are morons it works) Actually understanding him or contemplating his ideas would take effort, and worst of all; independent thought.

 

 

 is an ardent Clinton supporter

 

Of course she is. What kind of progressive wouldn't support Hillary since she is female and is in the democratic party. If your a democrat; you're good. If your a republican; you're racist. Hillary also has the added bonus of being a woman. Anyone who would rather have a man (Bernie) over a womyn (Hillary) is a misogynist.

 

 

 

considers Sanders a pie in the sky idealist who only cares about white people problems 

 

Well of course. Bernie doesn't worry about black people problems. Hillary does though, remember how she supports the drug war? That's (mostly) a black people problem. Why, Bernie hasn't made any black people's problems worse at all. How could she support that?

 

 

 

 and opposes his moderate socdem reforms.

 

 

Obviously. Progressives are trying to fight racist, misogynist, evil, colonialist, vicious, meritocratic capitalism. Not messing with the super rich's advantage over everyone else. Socialism is about being progressive, Baro. Not helping old white men use their privilege to oppress everything by being more successful than anything that's not a white male for any reason.

 

Remember, merit is misogynist and racist. I think you've been blinded by the white.

[Gromnir]

aside--

 

while we wouldn't call it ironic, am admitted surprised that given rubio's candidacy, none o' our more colorful boardies has taken the opportunity to post photos of mrs. rubio when she were a miami dolphins cheerleader.  perhaps has somebody done so and we missed?  admittedly, we ain't followed this thread too close til recent.  anyways, just sayin.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

I was scrolling through this woman's twitter at work. She has a Black Panthers avatar, quotes Malcolm X and yet calls herself a liberal, is an ardent Clinton supporter, considers Sanders a pie in the sky idealist who only cares about white people problems and opposes his moderate socdem reforms.

 

Just ... wat?

It's a liberal wrapping themselves in the imagery of radicals from decades ago in an attempt to conceal their advocacy for the continuation of the current system as radical change. Attempting to make sense of the obvious contradictions will only lead to a massive headache.

[Namutree]

 

"Donald Trump's Rise is the Rejection of more than a Quarter of Bush Republicanism"

Pretty good article. I liked this especially:

Buchanan observed that there is nothing about Bush Republicanism that is particularly attractive to American conservatives. He said, “After the judges and tax cuts, what is there about Bush that is conservative? His foreign policy is Wilsonian. His trade policy is pure FDR. His spending is LBJ all the way. His amnesty for illegals is Teddy Kennedy’s policy… In smearing as nativists, protectionists and isolationists those who wish to stop the invasion, halt the export of factories and jobs to Asia, and stop the unnecessary wars, Bush is attacking the last true conservatives in his party.”

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

aside--

 

while we wouldn't call it ironic, am admitted surprised that given rubio's candidacy, none o' our more colorful boardies has taken the opportunity to post photos of mrs. rubio when she were a miami dolphins cheerleader.  perhaps has somebody done so and we missed?  admittedly, we ain't followed this thread too close til recent.  anyways, just sayin.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

It's probably because the discussion has revolved primarily around Sanders and Trump, but I have an unfounded suspicion that Meshugger's theory that Rubio is in the closest has somehow contributed.

[Rostere]

took you a long time to respond, and that is what you come up with?

 

again, it still ain't irony.  is a difference 'tween irony and hypocrisy.  is a difference 'tween irony and simple ignorance... something don't become ironic 'cause you is wilfully obtuse.  dramatic irony can happen when audience/reader is aware o' information unknown to the characters in the play/book/movie, but such use o' irony is inappropriate as you is not a character from a play.  did you sudden become aware when GD posted in defense o' speech that Americans actual were serious 'bout free speech rights?  as a character from a play, if you had been somehow kept in the dark about American pov o' free speech and your only previous experience were based on the 2014 article you link, then we can see ros as a character exemplifying dramatic irony.  unfortunately, you are the freaking audience. you saw GUARD DOG's posting in defense o' free speech as ironic? sadly, this is a misuse o' the term. perhaps you and alanis morissette can create a support group?  dunno.  given that the US did not choose to suppress free speech in 1787, 1948 or 1977, or at anytime since then, it stands to reason that folks such as GD, ordinary Americans, rejected the pleas o' offended groups hundreds and even thousands o' times.  were anybody on these boards genuine surprised that Gromnir and others posted in defense o' free speech rights?  no?  GD's behavior were the expected and quite possibly the norm.  is why there were no actual surprise at behavior incongruous with what one would expect.  point out jewish-americans in 1977 or 1948 were offended by nazi propaganda, or that black groups were offended by kkk rallies, or that catholics and christians were offended by jon stewart's vagina-manger does not sudden make GD's behavior ironic.  

 

But this is very, very bad counterargument if it can even be called a counterargument at all. The actual moment of irony might have occurred now or at some earlier point in time when I learned of the contradiction, it doesn't change the fact that it happened, and that it was dramatic irony. Even so, I might also have written it assuming the dramatis persona of the generic Swede, who has no idea that there are any differences in free speech between the US and Sweden, in which case the dramatic irony occurs at the same point as the written narrative. But most importantly, you are mistaken in your conception of irony. Here is a pedagogic comic strip for you. Or in the definition from Merriam-Webster: "(1) : incongruity between the actual result of a sequence of events and the normal or expected result (2) : an event or result marked by such incongruity". Going to a forum and seeing American members hate hate speech laws constitutes "incongruity between the actual result of a sequence of events and the normal or expected result" when previous advice from Americans would have you expect the opposite.

 

90% of Swedes, or Europeans (not counting Germany which have very harsh hate speech laws) in general have either no idea of any differences between the US and European countries with regards to freedom of speech, and if they do, they might consider the differences completely inconsequential. I'm sure you are very, very proud that waving the Nazi flag and shouting "sieg heil" in a public place in front of people is not criminal in your country, but very few people outside of your country are aware of these differences at all. This is for the simple reason that this is a non-issue in practice.

 

If people would have been asked for legal differences between the US and Europe, I think most would have answered something about abortion or homosexuality being illegal in the US, maybe something about death penalty. As for the actual famous judicial approaches that the US is known for, it would probably be mass surveillance of own population through NSA, drone assassinations and kidnapping and then holding people in Guantanamo without trial, in that order.

 

 

thanks for final posting a link, but am also amused if you thinks we should be convinced by a swedish article from 2014 that doesn't even identify the s'posed jewish-american groups that convinced sweden to change its free speech laws... and as we already noted, the existence o' such wouldn't create irony.  is also, if is accurate, it is a pretty sad commentary on swedes that they didn't follow America's lead and side with defending liberty.

 

The primary sources are from newspapers in the 1940s, when this was a big affair. I doubt you would be interested in chasing down paper issues of 70-year old Swedish newspapers. Anyways, all of this is common knowledge as I stated before. If you are seriously interested you try putting parts of this document through Google Translate, it's a report from the Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention dealing with hate speech, where what I've talked about is mentioned briefly.

 

Of course they didn't "make" Sweden change create hate speech laws (which was in the making anyway), but they created pressure and a sense of international embarrassment. Their advice might have contributed to his punishment being more severe than otherwise though. Anyway, the degree to which they were involved was not the point, but rather the uniformity of advice coming from America on this issue, which was in favour of hate speech laws.

 

 

all the examples is gonna be different.  you already got defamation and incitement just as does the US.  the US doesn't have hate speech laws. the reason why the examples is different is because defamation and incitement is fundamental different.  how obtuse are you gonna be 'bout this? sweden and other euro nations had to come up with new laws 'cause your previous legal traditions did not provide a basis for criminalizing and punishing those behaviors you now, as a society, find intolerable.

 

No, all of the examples are not going to be different, since there are things which would be illegal both in the US and in Sweden. What would be illegal in the US essentially forms a subset of what is illegal as hate speech here.

 

 

truth is a defense against defamation, and opinion is NOT considered defamatory, even in sweden. for chrissakes, for defamation you gotta prove injury except in cases of libel where certain categories is considered inherent damaging.  point out that your ancestors raped Gromnir's ancestors is not defamation.

 

My point is that some of what is covered under hate speech is also criminal in the US. And parts of what the strawman notion of "hate speech" in your article have no counterpart in actual hate speech laws where I live. I have already enumerated the categories in my previous post. So there are absolutely differences, but the actual differences are more subtle and smaller than in strawman notions of hate speech laws entertained by the writer of your article, for example. You may absolutely be right that much of what is currently handled as hate speech could be equivalently handled as defamation against groups of people. But if so then it is also silly to denounce hate speech as being something very different from defamation.

 

 

"I guess I owe people like you some kind of thanks. Hundreds of years ago, when my ancestors and distant cousins were raping and killing your Indian ancestors and stealing their land, people like you made all of that possible. I can't say it feels very good now, but I'm sure you gave those old Europeans one hell of a good time in America, at the expense of all the Indians. I'm sure my ancestors did not call your ancestors "terrorists", but there must have been other words - "savage brutes", "filthy beasts", "barbarians" - words justifying revenge attacks on your women and children for resisting your ethnic cleansing."

 

is offensive and makes ros look bad, but ain't defamatory.  the only person whose reputation were damaged when you shared such thoughts were ros.  we can't show that we suffered any kinda damage.  heck, we can't even claim that our feelings were hurt as the statement were utter ridiculous, but hurt feelings is not actionable... save for when re-imagined as hate crimes.

 

You're kind of conveniently forgetting the context, that this was a reply to you justifying indiscriminate attacks on civilians and lumping together an entire people as terrorists - a despicable stance. That entire passage was me being ironic while making an analogy of your stance to make you understand just how reprehensible your opinion was. I have no idea of how this makes me look any bad at all, rather you are seeing a mirror reflexion of your own opinions. Sadly, if I recall the rest of the thread correctly, the point was completely lost on you.

 

In any case, I was more curious as to what might make a Native American rush so fast to eagerly support and defend genocide and ethnic cleansing - the psychological motivation behind such an obviously contradictory position could possibly be a prime example of compensation for a very serious inferiority complex. I am also very fascinated by Israeli Jews who have the Holocaust and Hitler's ethnocratic policies in near memory, but still without even a droplet of self-criticism talk about Arabs as an inferior race, as a demographic threat, and plan the "Judaization" of land conquered by military force through an Apartheid regime.

 

Watching people choose between reconciling contradictory positions or going for denial or rationalization like that is very interesting, and there's not always good opportunities to do so. You could think of such intentionally provocative statements as a particle collider of sorts for testing theories of political psychology.

[Gromnir]

am gonna ignore your misapprehensions o' law, 'cause if you won't bother to self-educate a bit, we can't help.  if you don't understand what is defamation and incitement, then you cannot hope to understand why hate crime laws is different.  am just not certain why you continue to embrace ignorance. 

 

and no, am not forgetting the context o' your offensive "my ancestors and distant cousins were raping and killing your Indian ancestors" nonsense.  that is precisely why we posted the link to the post.  try and reimagine however you wish, but if it weren't so ridiculous and over-the-top, we likely woulda' bee offended.  the actuality were that we were momentarily stupefied, but not offended... and we already responded.

 

http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/66123-israel-vs-palestine/?p=1473966

 

*sigh*

 

as to irony...

 

Am sad we need repeat this, but this were your observation ‘bout irony.

 

"That's ironic you know, that you are so opposed to hate speech laws. The Swedish hate speech laws was initially pushed by American Jewish groups, after some wacko handing out Nazi propaganda became an international embarrassment in 1948."

 

Ok, so am thinking we are safe in assuming that ros weren’t going for Socratic or dramatic irony, ‘cause those don’t apply even with ros obtuseness working to max.  gonna go with the everyday and garden-variety irony that alanis morissette and ros is seeming trying for: “incongruity between the actual event of a sequence of events and the normal or expected results.” 

 

Now, what ‘bout GD’S POSTING were incongruous with the normal and expected?  Ignore your 1948 jewish-americans for the nonce (most o’ Europe ignored or harassed jews for centuries, so a few moments longer shouldn’t cause any strain,) and focus on GD.  Is it actual ironic that GD is “so opposed to hate speech laws?”  Has his past behavior, the sequence leading up to his posting, led you to believe that he were opposed to free speech? Let’s be magnanimous and use some kinda stereotyping to aid ros in his pursuit o’ irony—is something ‘bout GD that woulda made one guess that he would be in favor of hate crime legislation? Perhaps his race, creed or national origin misled you?  Surely gd’s American citizenship did not lead you to believe that he would be in favor o’ hate speech legislation, after all, we got no hate speech laws in the US, and whenever some yutz tries to create such laws, folks like GD is fighting to prevent such from successful being passed by state and national legislatures.  You personal have seen GD post for some years on these boards, so am pretty sure you can’t use your own personal interactions with GD to establish the incongruity o’ his current opposition to hate speech. Perhaps you see GD as a kinda wild-eyed, gun-toting, red-Stater who drives a big pickup and is one controversial Supreme Court decision away from starting his own militia group? Oh, wait, that is Gromnir’s image o’ GD. Regardless, whatever were your personal image o’ GD (not that such would make ironic) am doubting you genuine expected GD to support hate speech legislation.

 

Sooooooo, now we get to the curious example o’ jewish-americans in 1948.  What about jewish-americans convincing 1948 Sweden to adopt hate laws makes GD’S POSTING an unexpected result? You cannot possibly suggest that ‘cause you read an article that created a rather suspect causal link ‘tween an unspecified jewish-american group and Sweden’s adoption o’ ate laws that GD’s BEHAVIOR were transformed from expected to incongruous.  Did you perhaps mean that the 1948 jewish-american’s behavior were incongruous or unexpected?  No, that wouldn’t make much sense, would it?  Is difficult to work up any surprise that people o’ the jewish faith would be angered by a guy promoting nazi propaganda.  So, what is it ‘bout the 1948 Jewish-Americans made GD’S POSTING in opposition to hate speech a surprising?  How were GD’s actions unexpected? Given GD’s past behavior or his inherent qualities, what made HIS behavior incongruous with your expectations? 

 

Now, we can see a certain black humor in your mistaken irony. After all, if sweden’s adoption o’ hate speech laws were the result o’ pressure from a jewish-american group in 1948, we cannot help but see the scenario as a monumental farce.  To observe that the jewish people faced considerable bigotry across much/most o’ Europe for many centuries previous to 1948  is an understatement, but particular starting in the late 1800s, the endemic bigotry the jewish peoples faced became marked by systemic violence.  Sweden weren't as bad as some nations (ain't saying much) and we get that sweden wanted to stay neutral during ww2, but given all that EUROPEAN JEWS suffered for so very long, for sweden to sudden have an epiphany about hate speech 'cause an unidentified group o' american jews 'posedly complained about a guy handing out nazi pamphlets is... *shrug*  as we said, is black humor.

 

HA! Good Fun!

Edited February 22, 2016 by Gromnir

[Amentep]

Trump's a moronic blowhard, but he has his heart in the right place.

 

Just behind and slightly left of the breastbone?

[aluminiumtrioxid]

Wow, you're still arguing about this.

[Bartimaeus]

Wow, you're still arguing about this.

 

Yeah, arguments like this always remind me of how poorly people must perceive me after I've been in an argument like this myself. And then I think...why do I have to be so stubborn?

Edited February 22, 2016 by Bartimaeus

[Gromnir]

we got some considerable stamina in dealing with these kinda things, but even Gromnir can only manage so long.

 

nevertheless, ros argument contains two pet-peeves we got which has made us wanna keep at it a bit longer than is typical. the first is the inexplicable misuse o' "irony."  honest, what is it 'bout irony that so confuses folks?  why do people use interchangeable with curious, quixotic, hypocritical and a half-dozen other more applicable words? the other is the frequency with which we sees folks mischaracterize aspects o' the law.  some people got this weird notion that the law is all just subjective gobbledygook and that lawyers finagle it however they so desire. there is grey areas in the law, but hate speech laws in europe is not fungible with euro defamation or incitement anymore than they is in the US.  

 

also, in all fairness, there were a five-page and three-day gap during which Gromnir assumed the discussion were finished. hasn't so much been "still arguing" as arguing again.

 

...

 

am tempted to reference a few o' the gg thread endurance-fest arguments we saw in recent past... well, recent from our pov.  al2o3 surprise is a bit curious in light o' such. but yeah, point taken.  this one should've been dead awhile ago.  

 

HA! Good Fun!

Edited February 22, 2016 by Gromnir

[BruceVC]

we got some considerable stamina in dealing with these kinda things, but even Gromnir can only manage so long.

 

nevertheless, ros argument contains two pet-peeves we got which has made us wanna keep at it a bit longer than is typical. the first is the inexplicable misuse o' "irony."  honest, what is it 'bout irony that so confuses folks?  why do people use interchangeable with curious, quixotic, hypocritical and a half-dozen other more applicable words? the other is the frequency with which we sees folks mischaracterize aspects o' the law.  some people got this weird notion that the law is all just subjective gobbledygook and that lawyers just finagle it however they so desire. there is grey areas in the law, but hate speech laws in europe is not fungible with euro defamation or incitement anymore than they is in the US.  

 

also, in all fairness, there were a five-page and three-day gap during which Gromnir assumed the discussion were finished. hasn't so much been "still arguing" as arguing again.

 

...

 

am tempted to reference a few o' the gg thread endurance-fest arguments we saw in recent past... well, recent from our pov.  al2o3 surprise is a bit curious in light o' such. but yeah, point taken.  this one should've been dead awhile ago.  

 

HA! Good Fun!

I would think some of those debates you have had with Zora must be worse than this one ? I have found this one interesting 

 

But I do admire your debating fortitude and stamina 

[Gromnir]

 

If they're disturbing my festival, they're violating my right of free speech, no? How come you can't have a protest in the Supreme Court? That's also public property, but obviously they won't allow you to disrupt the proceedings. Nor can you protest inside any government building. You can protest outside all you want. The festival wasn't held on a side walk, they got a permit for the public space they used, so as long as they follow the laws, they can control that space for the duration of the permit. The protestors could also get a permit for the same space at a different time, and protest themselves silly, or they could protest outside. The Constitution isn't a suicide pact, as absolutists would like us to believe. Someone's right of free speech doesn't mean I'm obligated to also listen to them while I'm going about my business.

 

if you are having a street festival, somebody can use the street to protest your festival.  am thinking you don't necessarily have all the facts o' the case, but that is understandable.  the anti-muslim protesters occupied portions o' the street not in use by the festival to taunt attendees. don't let papers confuse you when they observe that the bigoted anti-muslims "disrupted" the festival. 

 

free speech does not mean that others need remain quiet while you exercise your free speech rights.  thank goodness.  whenever the kkk or nazis have their little marches, people come out to protest.  good.  we would be mighty disappointed if some group dedicated to bigotry held a street festival in dearborn and the good folks o' michigan did not respond with public chastisements.  the thing is, the Constitution doesn't make judgement calls on the quality o' speech and there is no right to be free from offense.  we do not force the naacp to remain quiet while the kkk marches.  reverse must be true if everybody gets same free speech, yes?

 

and nobody says you need listen to bigots or offensive speech.  respond and educate, or leave.  nevertheless, if is a park or sidewalk or street, people got a right to speak their mind.  avoiding your inconvenience is not the kinda government objective that is gonna survive a strict scrutiny analysis.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

ps is actual kinda amusing how the police attempted to prevent the events o' the dearborn incident.  as we noted, streets and parks and sidewalks is Public Forums, though even those has been diluted by recent Courts and by well-intentioned local officials.  officials in dearborn were not caught unaware by the anti-muslim protesters, so they set up a "free-speech zone" where the protesters could gather.

 

*chuckle*

 

such "free-speech zone" limits near always fail legal challenges, but rare do the protester have the means or opportunity to get injunctive relief. regardless, the bigots were in their zone when the folks from the muslim festival began hurling soda cans and such at 'em.  

 

pps after re-reading, we need kinda apologize for how little we explained public forum doctrine, but is kinda confusing.  is an irresponsible oversimplification to state that parks, sidewalks and streets is the only genuine public forums, but is, for all practical purposes, true.  the only public property where people can expect to get full free speech protection is parks, public streets and public sidewalks.  in the 1980s the Courts started using a peculiar original intent rationale to put limits on public forums.  example: the founding fathers couldn't have envisioned airports and so airports were not public fora.   wacky.  pre 1980s, all public property were either a public forum or a closed public forum.  for obvious reasons, locations such as prisons, hospitals, military bases were closed.  everything else were fair game.  in the past, the public forum doctrine were raised almost exclusively as a bar on the State-- can't restrict speech 'cause _______ is public. in the 80s (pre Reagan appointees actually) the Court gets creative and uses the public forum doctrine as a limit.  more and more locations become categorized as either closed or limited public fora 'til now we got only streets, parks and sidewalks as traditional public fora. 

 

is very few places where an American has full free speech protections that cannot be abridged.  streets, parks and sidewalks is the totality o' the list.  so if you not wanna be offended, is easy to get away from the offending speech.

 

am still indulging in almost negligent oversimplification. apologies.

Edited February 22, 2016 by Gromnir

[Gromnir]

 

Trump's a moronic blowhard, but he has his heart in the right place.

 

Just behind and slightly left of the breastbone?

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_eulSbXIjzk

 

the grinch heart were positioned correct... were just a bit small.  

 

any chance trump's metaphorical heart grows and he saves christmas?  

 

...

 

we stress metaphorical growth 'cause we seem to recall that an enlarged heart is rather unhealthy.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Raithe]

[Malcador]

Just behind and slightly left of the breastbone?

Huh...no wonder they've been taking so long to die..

[Wrath of Dagon]

is very few places where an American has full free speech protections that cannot be abridged.  streets, parks and sidewalks is the totality o' the list.  so if you not wanna be offended, is easy to get away from the offending speech.

Well no, it's not, because I'd have to leave the festival I came out to participate in. I agree that parks are public forum, but if a piece is given over to a festival with a permit (I've never heard of not having a permit for a festival) that piece should not be considered public forum for the duration. The SC decisions may be as you say, but I'll note not every judge on that court agreed (may be for different reason though).

 

Marco Rubio a whimpering mamma's boy : http://www.buzzfeed.com/mckaycoppins/the-anxiety-of-marco-rubio#.ujLX5kKq9X "Ten valor, Marquito!"

[Gromnir]

 

Well no, it's not, because I'd have to leave the festival I came out to participate in. I agree that parks are public forum, but if a piece is given over to a festival with a permit (I've never heard of not having a permit for a festival) that piece should not be considered public forum for the duration. The SC decisions may be as you say, but I'll note not every judge on that court agreed (may be for different reason though).

 

Marco Rubio a whimpering mamma's boy : http://www.buzzfeed.com/mckaycoppins/the-anxiety-of-marco-rubio#.ujLX5kKq9X "Ten valor, Marquito!"

 

is always best to consider how you would feel if a repugnant group were holding a festival-- weird cults and racists and whatnot. is a permit to have a march, festival or parade justification for preventing the NAACP from showing up to protest a KKK rally being held in a local park? imagine the NAACP shows up on the street just outside the barriers set up for the planned kkk hootenanny and they shout at those folks entering and exiting the park. 

 

am also gonna once again observe that the event you reference were a street festival.  even if the muslim group got a permit, that cannot possibly mean that all adjacent streets and sidewalks beyond the extent o' the festival should be off-limits to protest, can it? 'course not.  were a street festival.  as such, protesters woulda been able to be on streets and sidewalks within view and shouting distance o' the festival

 

but again, the actual facts is that the bible thumpers who were protesting the muslim festival were doing so from a "free speech zone" established by the city o' dearborn and the ruling o' the court regarding the first amendment issue were never controversial or questioned. the legal issue being referenced in your article were the extent of dearborn's liability.  liability were a forgone conclusion.  

 

from your linked article

 

"Murphy’s order does not affect the portion of the appeals court decision that found Bible Believers’ First Amendment rights were violated and that members should be awarded damages by defendants Dennis Richardson and Mike Jaafar, who were both deputy chiefs with the Wayne County Sheriff’s Office at the time."

 

were a question o' who pays for the wrong done to the protesters: city and county or city alone. the city police claimed they got an okie dokie from the county counsel to go ahead and arrest the protesters.  county denied.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Wrath of Dagon]

OK, if the facts are as you state them, then you're right, they have a right to protest in a "free speech" zone, or on public streets. I was under the impression they walked through the festival, screaming and carrying a pig's head, and then were asked to leave. I was actually reacting to this article I read a while back https://popehat.com/?s=dearborn but couldn't remember where I read it, so found another article on the same incident.

[Namutree]

This meme was used incorrectly.

[Calax]

I think one thing that has been making the rounds recently (enough to get a Cracked article out of it) is the idea that part of the reason we're getting so insane in our elections is that the people have much more direct power in the selection of their candidates. And the reason there's o much more random bashing going on is because people feel much more personally invested in their candidate than they did in the prior elections.

[Gromnir]

OK, if the facts are as you state them, then you're right, they have a right to protest in a "free speech" zone, or on public streets. I was under the impression they walked through the festival, screaming and carrying a pig's head, and then were asked to leave. I was actually reacting to this article I read a while back https://popehat.com/?s=dearborn but couldn't remember where I read it, so found another article on the same incident.

we can't give you westlaw or lexus access, but search wxyz-tv 2012 arab festival.  a few such news bits describe the "free speech zone."  dearborn is actual notorious for their "free speech zones."

 

most case excerpts from your link simple repeat what we observed earlier in this thread, so no need to repeat fighting words or incitement.... and hardly any mention were given to the public forum aspect precisely 'cause o' the free speech zone. 

 

however...

 

"Fundamentally, no police action that hinders the speaker’s freedom of speech should be deemed legitimate in the eyes of the Constitution unless it satisfies strict scrutiny, which requires the police to achieve their ends by using only those means that are the least restrictive with respect to the speaker’s First Amendment rights."

 

keep in mind that you cannot read this as plain english-- is legal terms o' art.  when a court applies "strict scrutiny,"  it is a near complete and total loss for the State. the government needs use the Least restrictive means to achieve their Compelling interest.   we capitalized purposefully 'cause least and compelling is no joke. you can count on one hand (and have fingers left unused) the times the SCOTUS upheld state abridgement o' free speech wherein strict scrutiny were applied... and dearborn weren't a wartime case.  when courts say least respective, they mean it.  is not least respective given police manpower and resources available.  money and cost does not overcome first amendment least restrictive.  

 

'y'know the reason why Gromnir does mostly free exercise and establishment as 'posed to free speech?  'cause free speech is too easy.  if you got facially neutral time, place and manner restrictions (volume outside a hospital) or incidental regulation (burning your draft card isn't ok even if is speech) then Gromnir needs put in a full day o' work, but that is rare.  if is speech, and is protected speech, and if we ain't dealing with increasing number o' forum issues, then double-check for tpm or incidental regulation possibilities.  nope?  apply strict scrutiny and call it a day.  too easy.  thank goodness.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Barothmuk]

I think one thing that has been making the rounds recently (enough to get a Cracked article out of it) is the idea that part of the reason we're getting so insane in our elections is that the people have much more direct power in the selection of their candidates. And the reason there's o much more random bashing going on is because people feel much more personally invested in their candidate than they did in the prior elections.

But now we live in an age of "Bernie Bros," where Democrats debate the merits of their respective candidates with image macros like this:

 

 

Because a woman pandering to voters deserves to be mocked, while a man who spends his entire career fighting immigration and then starts canvassing for Hispanic votes as soon as he runs for President is the epitome of consistency.

?

[Namutree]

 

I think one thing that has been making the rounds recently (enough to get a Cracked article out of it) is the idea that part of the reason we're getting so insane in our elections is that the people have much more direct power in the selection of their candidates. And the reason there's o much more random bashing going on is because people feel much more personally invested in their candidate than they did in the prior elections.

But now we live in an age of "Bernie Bros," where Democrats debate the merits of their respective candidates with image macros like this:

 

 

Because a woman pandering to voters deserves to be mocked, while a man who spends his entire career fighting immigration and then starts canvassing for Hispanic votes as soon as he runs for President is the epitome of consistency.

?

 

What are you confused about?

[Raithe]

Heh.

 

Donald Trump and Morning Joe hosts off-air conversation leaked

 

 

A leaked audio recording of Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski’s off-air conversations with Donald Trump has reignited concerns that the MSNBC co-hosts are too friendly with the Republican frontrunner.

 

The conversations, which took place during the commercial breaks at last week’s MSNBC “Trump Town Hall” event, feature the three talking jovially about the success of Trump’s campaign, his likelihood of winning South Carolina and Nevada, and the ineffectiveness of his opponents’ attack ads.

 

The audio, which was obtained by comedian and radio show host Harry Shearer, offered the latest evidence that the “Morning Joe” co-hosts are too friendly toward Trump, which has become a source of discomfort at NBC. Network insiders have chafed at what they described as Scarborough’s “over the top” and “unseemly” admiration for the real estate magnate who is leading the GOP field.

 

Shearer’s own take, upon the conclusion of the recording: “You can cut the adversarial tension there with a knife,” he quipped. “A butter knife, but still.”

One portion of the tape that received criticism on Twitter was misleading. It features Brzezinski saying, “You don’t want me to do the [questions] on deportation?” to which Trump replies: “That’s right. Nothing too hard, Mika.”

 

However, sources at MSNBC said that Brzezinski was speaking to her producer Alex Korson and that Trump was voicing his approval of the decision from the sidelines.  Beyond that MSNBC has declined to comment on the tape.