Obama wasn't all that progressive and he protected financial elites. I got richer under him (and under Trump too). Not sure what long-term, dire problems in America he addressed. If he had, maybe we wouldn't have had all those riots after George Floyd was murdered. BTW, he was murdered in progressive city with a progressive mayor and one that hadn't had a Republican in charge for decades.
Small businesses
- Thread starter paindonthurt
- Start date
I don't think anybody has tried to normalize it, but it needs to be kept in perspective. It was bad. But it was not the worst tragedy to hit the country since 9/11. It's probably not in the top 100.
I don't. Feel free to change my mind. I respond to evidence, and base my views on what holds up. That's why I'm liberal.
That link doesn't really offer anything. Sure, it's a con saying they support free speech in theory....but when push comes to shove will he really? How's he feel about banning the burning of the flag? About antifa protests? Lbgt books in libraries?
How do SC votes look? I honestly don't know, but heavily suspect that the lib justices vote to defend conservative speech, but the con justices never vote to defend lib speech.
Exactly. Who was the republican that popularized "the phrase Never let a crisis go to waste" in the US? Rahm something or other?
First, you male clear with every post who is the dumb one here. Show some humility at least, that you should be capable of.
The ACLU has been doing that for decades. And the right vilifies them. Case closed.
You say a lot of factually incorrect things with absolute certainty. May I suggest that just because you don't know something, it might not be because it "never" happened. You also seem to think some random things add up to a larger conspiracy. Who do you think writes speech codes and limits open discussion of ideas on college campuses? Republicans? You can't possibly be so ill-informed, can you? You have a few ideas about some conservatives and Republicans, especially of the recent vintage, and you apply them in a shallow and simplistic way to all conservatives. BTW, and I found this in like 3 seconds. https://law.stanford.edu/press/justice-scalia-originalism-free-speech-first-amendment/
"I respond to evidence, and base my views on what holds up. That's why I'm liberal." That's not the definition of a liberal. A lot of people do that. Some don't.
Last edited:
"Show some humility at least" "Case closed."
Incredible humility and self-awareness to boot.***
Incredible humility and self-awareness to boot.***
I was with you until the last sentence. Fact is (pesky things, those facts) mayor's don't have much control over the police. The (conservative) state legislatures see to it as much as they can, and politics takes care of the rest. We have conservative POLICY control when it comes to the police. And those policies killed George Floyd, and conservatives are resisting altering those policies. With great success (politically).
I do t think I have. Examples?
I agree, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
I am against "free speech zones", so I agree with you there. Note that I never advocated that Dems are prefect. Merely that they are better than cons. I think you should apply your own critiques here.
Maybe I wouldn't apply them in a simplistic way to all conservatives, if they didn't vote that way.
I didn't say it was the definition. I said it was why. I'm not other people, I'm me, that's why I said "I", not "all liberals".
Your link supports ME, not you:
"Free speech is an important topic to tackle given how it’s under attack today. Professor Nadine Strossen of New York Law School, president of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) from 1991 to 2008, noted that advocating free speech has been described as “conservative,” in quarters where that’s not a compliment, and has even been investigated as “hate speech” on some university campuses.
Strossen’s political views are well to the left of most Federalist Society members, but on free speech, they’re with her. “Normally speaking at the Federalist Society is going into the lion’s den for me,” she said, “but on this issue, I’m preaching to the choir.”
Justice Scalia knew how his views on the First Amendment were shared by far more liberal figures — and even took a certain amount of pride in it."
I may have to give Scalia some credit, but....he's dead. Care to try again?
Yes, the legislature in Minnesota is dominated by conservatives. Mayors can't appoint police chiefs, push to investigate the police etc. Yes they can't do that. I've never ever read a book on policing and criminal justice in America. Never ever*** Dude. You need to stop. There are informed, well-read people on this site. Derek Chauvin killed Floyd and he's in prison now. You make about as much sense as someone looking at a murder in Chicago or any other city and saying liberals killed him.
"We have conservative POLICY control when it comes to the police. And those policies killed George Floyd" I have no idea what "conservative policy, sorry POLICY, control" means. There's an Alex Jones-style quality to your posts. He blames liberals and globalists for all sorts of things with absolute certainty because of something one or a few things liberals did or said. You're like the mirror opposite of him and see conservatives and Republicans behind all sorts of nefarious things or just things you don't like.
You’re right when it comes to policy control.
And when it comes to crime, most liberals & many progressives are okay with control policies to the point that San Francisco voters earlier this year recalled a very progressive DA who went way too far in the other direction even by their standards.
Not a lot of "lib speech" cases that have come before the current court. But:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/15-1194_08l1.pdf - All justices other than Gorsuch, who didn't participate, held that North Carolina Law prohibiting sex offenders from using social media was unconstitutional. Alito, Thomas, and Roberts did issue separate concurring opinion because they thought the majority opinion wasbroader than it needed to be to resolve the case.
Most of the free speech related cases that make it to the supreme court seem to involve either forced/coerced speech (e.g., colorado baker; NGOs being required to adopt antiprostitution policies); what is government speech that can be subject to content restrictions (e.g., vanity license plates and trademark); free speech rights of students; gov't regulating employee's speech; and the occasional establishment clause case for things like opening a meeting with a prayer. Some of them like the Colorado baker case clearly line up with political concerns (i.e., you can predict what hte left will want and what the right will want), but a lot of them don't necessarily break down along partisan lines (e.g., not sure you can predict whether the left or right would be more ok with government regulating the speech of employees; you might would think leftist judges would be more protective of religious righst of muslims, but they are not, at least in the context of prisons, etc.).
And I think it's important to distinguish between liberals and self-proclaimed progressives. Liberals and conservatives support prosecuting criminals and putting violent criminals in prison. They disagree on sentencing lengths and the severity of some non-violent crimes. Progressives, like that DA, regard criminal justice as a systemic issue and are thus more likely to support bail reform, de-incarceration and other issues that keep violent people out of prison. Thus, it should be no surprise that murder rates in cities with some progressive DA's have skyrocketed (not all, though). Most of those murdered have been black men, and they haven't been killed by the KKK members or Nazis. But, at least progressive DA's don't live in neighborhoods where the released, violent criminals do so they're safe from the effects of the policies they support. They can feel self-satisfied that they support equity
Hmm, bad faith tactic to not address my claims and just wave your hands about me. Let's address the claims in good faith?
Mayor's don't have much control over the police? Agree or disagree? And please address it as a practical matter, not a theoretical one.
State legislatures (correlating with amount of conservative control) tie the hands of localities on police policy. Agree or disagree?
The legislature in Minnesota is dominated by politicians who don't want to touch police reform. Is this a statement you disagree with?
Were police policies that conservatives favor and libs don't at play in why George Floyd was killed?
Muliple straw men. Pointless and a waste of my time for me to respond. I suspect you don't see that, though.
"Were police policies that conservatives favor and libs don't at play in why George Floyd was killed?" I believe some liberals support having the police respond to a business owner's call about receiving counterfeit money from a customer. I'm unaware that liberals in general support counterfeiting. I believe most conservatives don't think someone should be murdered for passing a counterfeit $20. That's why Chauvin was prosecuted for murder and is in prison.
I ain't buying your simplistic binary understanding of what's conservative or liberal. Both liberals and conservatives support imprisonment for those guilty of murder. Imprisoning murderers isn't conservative or liberal.
It's inaccurate to say progressives want violent people out of prison. That's Alex Jones level delusion, buddy.
Work on your reading comprehension. The words "more likely" matter in that sentence I wrote.
Bad faith. All cons share it. Dude, its about use of force, how we train cops, and accountability for them.
As you've said, Chauvin was in a liberal city with a liberal DA. Who many Chauvins are there that aren't in prison because they didn't have that? (I doubt I'll get a good faith answer.)
Correct. Though the statement is dubious, as the link between cash bail for non-violent offenders and the incarceration rate of violent people is dubious.
All cons have bad faith. Every single one of them. They all do. My wife is a conservative. All of her opinions are in bad faith. I now see the light***
"Who many Chauvins are there that aren't in prison because they didn't have that? (I doubt I'll get a good faith answer.)"
Beats me. I suppose there are a few because cops get away with stuff. I doubt you know either because your convictions don't seem to be based on a careful reading of data and analysis of the issues you discuss.
Here's a respected criminologist with multiple refereed articles and books. I suspect you've never heard of him. I also suspect you believe you're more informed on this issue than he is. He's a Dem, btw.
Not really accurate. I don't think "progressives" (who existed long before these policy proposals) would be against cash bail if it were reasonably used. But when peeps are regularly jailed for years in hellholes like Rikers for lack of a few hundred bucks on a dubious charge that eventually gets dropped.....yeah, they see a need for some reform.
I would tie it to the existing standards for getting a free attorney, which in MS at least are strict. If you can't afford an attorney, what does cash bail do, in practice? And of course we should be strict on multiple offenders or those already out on recognizance.
Side note: for personal reasons I won't go into, I've been watching as a very rural, red MS county keeps releasing a meth dealer. He has multiple convictions, yet gets released on a pending charge, picked up for it AGAIN before trial....and still released again. I don't get it. Seems to be a problem that goes beyond "progressive DAs".
I get the critique over generalizations, but that's my experience. Seems to be a quality required to maintain the faulty belief system. And my good faith questions sit unanswered btw, so you have lost the moral high ground here.
I think there's enough to justify reform. Agree?
They are giving Liberals a bad name. It's gonna be funny when the Liberals try to wrestle control back from these ultra leftist idiots. I remember Liberals. You could have a give and take debate with them.
There should be balance. When the Republican Party had POTUS, House, and Senate the 17ed up too. They just didn't spend so much money. I feel sorry for my grandchildren. Not out of grammar school and they are already in massive debt.
He has an opinion. It is certainly not a fact. That he says it is, negates his opinions value.
ETA: how does he know those released without bail, wouldn't have posted bail if it was required? How does he know there's not a corresponding decrease in crime, for example crimes committed on the poor (possibly innocent, certainly not convicted yet) in Rikers due to lack of money for bail?
He's currently writing a book that addresses it and he includes criminals let out who re-offend who would not have been let out under prior rules. It's not hard to figure out. This is really pointless. Your views seem to be that all conservatives believe and do such and such and when presented with information challenging it and pointing out that some liberals believe and do such and such you reframe the issue and deny reality. Your views seem to be based on what you personally observe and what you experience and use that to make universal, exclusivist generalizations.
On a fishing trip I met a Trump supporter on disability and, I suspect, meth as well. Therefore, all Trump supporters are on disability and meth. Prove me wrong.***
ANY0N3 C@N F@K3 @ W3B51T3 0N TH3 1NT3RN3T!!!1!!1!1!1!1Chain of custody or not. Do you believe theyou see on the laptop? If you don’t you are dumb. If you do, great. Who cares about the chain of custody if the **** is real? IT IS REAL.
It’s generational, man. The progressives will control the national Democratic Party apparatus in 20 years.
The liberals will do what they can to hold that off. If Buttigieg were from a more Democratic friendly state, I’d suggest he leave the cabinet and run for Governor.
He’s not the next one up (that would be the Veep) but you’ve got to have some depth in the leadership.
AOC would be considered one.
She’s early in her tenure in the house. But wait ten years when she gains seniority…
Sanders to a certain extent. He’s been a good agitator for change (not that I agree with him but he’s moved the needle on some issues and that’s something to be respected).
As good as he is in the Senate, Sanders would have been a horrible President.
9 pages. It can happen. Miracles do happen. Can't remember the last time the words "small businesses" were used.
Thanks for making my point in more than one way. I cannot argue with the human deflection shield.
It's gotta be godly and exhausting to always be right while constantly speak down to any detractor of how they are wrong and a poor human being.
Waitaminute... I answered his question.
Here's an example of constantly being reminded how wrong you are about anything. Later, I am not getting paid for this ****.
Maybe you should have looked for more than 3 seconds:
Scalia's free speech hypocrisy: What a new study proves about his bias
"Judges are human, and they fall prey to the same kind of bias" as the rest of us, leading expert tells Salon
www.salon.com
Bad faith argument. You fail to acknowledge that I have a point, and instead are making an appeal to authority argument from some rando. And you top it off by generalizing me and my views. Irony.
