Kids Protest thier own Graduation

[*bfine32*]

(05-22-2017, 09:22 PM)GMDino Wrote: He still doesn't understand what "free speech" means.  Seems anyone who doesn't want to listen to one of his boys is "violating" the first amendment.  

And you still don't understand what you read.; as no one suggested anyone's 1st Amendment Right was violated.

Simply said the kids that walked out as Pence prepared to give his commencement speech were Protesting him exercising his 1st Amendment right. 

[Vlad]

(05-22-2017, 05:23 PM)GMDino Wrote: And I said it was a wonderful opinion.

But that's not what you thought. Be sincere now. I know you can do it.

[Dill]

(05-22-2017, 07:46 PM)bfine32 Wrote: No one switched topics. You just need to go back and read your entire post that I was replying too. Not just the arbitrary liberals moniker that you wish to assign to folks in the past because that is what you consider yourself today and want to associated yourself with the awesome folks of the past.

Save your history speech for someone who may buy itand believes Goldwater actually got a lot of support.  

I can imagine a couple decades in the future, when an enlightened society condemns us for killing our unborn. Some Democrat will say. Hey we were awesome back then too. We switched after that.

This is simply a refusal to address the points made in my answer as I addressed the points made in yours. 

And my primary point was that liberalism and conservatism are political ideologies which can be identified by people's stated beliefs and actions, regardless of what parties they belong to. We can do that in Western Europe as well as the United States.  Political parties are assemblages of groups whose interests and goals and labels may change over time. Looking at European parties for example, party labels like "Democratic" tell you little. You have to know the party platform.  "Liberalism" and "conservatism" describe political ideals and behaviors existing since the 18th century in many countries. Party labels do not.
Someone who wants women to have the vote in 1919 is behaving as a "liberal" regardless of party, and someone who does not, someone who wishes to conserve the present order, the status quo, is behaving as a "conservative."  When voting women become the norm, the status quo, then yes, conservatives are for it. But until then they prefer "order" to equality.   

For decades, Republicans and Democrats in the US contained BOTH liberals and conservatives, and among them people who were liberal on some issues and conservative on others. After 1965, Republicans began the long process of sorting liberals out of their party, then moderates, then moderate conservatives. Who are the liberal Republicans now?

If what I say is NOT the case, then that would be easy to demonstrate.  E.g., provide examples of conservatives who rode with the Freedom Riders and marched with Martin Luther King, and liberals who supported the Klan. Demonstrate that the Republican party of today has retained many liberals and the Democratic has retained many conservatives.  You cannot.  Instead you would like to equate liberals with the Democratic party, rather than with traditional definition of liberalism, so you can tar today's liberals with the actions of yesterday's conservatives.

And you cannot disprove my points by speaking as if the definitions and history employed here are "arbitrary," simply my opinion. 

So of course you do not want a history lesson. You want to keep your beliefs regardless of whether the historical record supports them.  You have a perfect right do so, as I have a right to contrast those beliefs with the historical record when you drop them in a public forum.

[GMDino]

(05-22-2017, 09:41 PM)bfine32 Wrote: And you still don't understand what you read.; as no one suggested anyone's 1st Amendment Right was violated.

Simply said the kids that walked out as Pence prepared to give his commencement speech were Protesting him exercising his 1st Amendment right. 

So you think that them leaving and not listening, but him speaking freely anyway, was protesting his First Amendment right to speak freely?

That is ADORABLE!

You probably worked on that angle all weekend!

Good try!

Kudos!

[*bfine32*]

(05-22-2017, 10:23 PM)GMDino Wrote: So you think that them leaving and not listening, but him speaking freely anyway, was protesting his First Amendment right to speak freely?

That is ADORABLE!

You probably worked on that angle all weekend!

Good try!

Kudos!

I do, as do most articles written about the PROTEST of Pence speaking.

But somehow, someway in Fred Dino logic this is them NOT protesting free speech and I'm the one looking for an "angle".

They protested his right to speak and they were within their rights to do so. Just as folks that booed them as they were walking out were protesting them. Folks can disagree on the message that either sends all they want. They just cant change what was actually done and/or said, but oh how they try.

[Vlad]

(05-22-2017, 09:41 PM)bfine32 Wrote: And you still don't understand what you read.; as no one suggested anyone's 1st Amendment Right was violated.

Simply said the kids that walked out as Pence prepared to give his commencement speech were Protesting him exercising his 1st Amendment right. 

In other words these snowflakes felt Pence didn't have the right to speak so they walked out.
That wasn't too hard to understand.

[Dill]

(05-22-2017, 09:26 PM)Vlad Wrote: Oh I don't know Dill...perhaps they'll finally become rational and support men who desire to use the little girls room because they think they are a woman.

Or maybe the white conservative of the future will finally admit that he is an oppressor of black people.

You know, shit like that.

Horrors! Reminds be of earlier battles over segregated rest rooms.

Actually, a number of white conservatives have already admitted they oppressed  blacks.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=112329862
http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/18/living/georgetown-slavery-service/
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=93059465  (to be fair, not everyone in Congress supported this; the Senate voted unanimously to apologize a year later; must have been SOME white conservatives in there.)

[GMDino]

(05-22-2017, 10:30 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I do, as do most articles written about the PROTEST of Pence speaking.

But somehow, someway in Fred Dino logic this is them NOT protesting free speech and I'm the one looking for an "angle".

They protested his right to speak and they were within their rights to do so. Just as folks that booed them as they were walking out were protesting them. Folks can disagree on the message that either sends all they want. They just cant change what was actually done and/or said, but oh how they try.

(05-22-2017, 10:32 PM)Vlad Wrote: In other words these snowflakes felt Pence didn't have the right to speak so they walked out.
That wasn't too hard to understand.

Seems someone has a friend!

Good for you two!  Enjoy patting each other on the back and not understanding what free speech is.

[*bfine32*]

(05-22-2017, 10:32 PM)Vlad Wrote: In other words these snowflakes felt Pence didn't have the right to speak so they walked out.
That wasn't too hard to understand.

Unless you are looking hard for an angle..

WTS, I hate the term snowflakes and I would be very surprised if whomever came up with this idea was actually one of the kids graduating.

Most likely someone with an agenda that cared very little if he/she exploited these kids and used them and their graduation day as pawns.

[Dill]

(05-22-2017, 10:32 PM)Vlad Wrote: In other words these snowflakes felt Pence didn't have the right to speak so they walked out.
That wasn't too hard to understand.

If you decide not to buy a news paper because you don't like the political opinions in it, are you protesting the publisher's right to free speech or just exercising your right not to hear it?

[*bfine32*]

(05-22-2017, 10:43 PM)Dill Wrote: If you decide not to buy a news paper because you don't like the political opinions in it, are you protesting the publisher's right to free speech or just exercising your right not to hear it?

What's that phrase folks like to use around here......"False equivalency"


First of all you cannot hear a newspaper.

Secondly; which is the "not to hear" right.

Thirdly, your example may have some very small equivalence if they had not showed up (purchased the newspaper) at all.

[Dill]

(05-22-2017, 10:41 PM)GMDino Wrote: Seems someone has a friend!

Good for you two!  Enjoy patting each other on the back and not understanding what free speech is.

Does seem like they are saying, if you refuse to hear a speech by someone, then you are protesting the principle of free speech, not the choice of speaker, the administration the speaker represents, the speaker's own ideas, or any number of other possibilities.

I can understand why someone would protest Pence for his policy stances on, for example, gay marriage, but If someone wanted to protest the 1st Amendment, why would he or she protest Pence??  How would anyone know they were protesting that, specifically?

[*bfine32*]

(05-22-2017, 10:59 PM)Dill Wrote: Does seem like they are saying, if you refuse to hear a speech by someone, then you are protesting the principle of free speech, not the choice of speaker, the administration the speaker represents, the speaker's own ideas, or any number of other possibilities.

I can understand why someone would protest Pence for his policy stances on, for example, gay marriage, but If someone wanted to protest the 1st Amendment, why would he or she protest Pence??  How would anyone know they were protesting that, specifically?

Let's make this real easy so the board can get back to Trump.

Do you think the kids were protesting Pence's right to free speech? All it takes is a yes or no. No retort will be offered.

[Dill]

(05-22-2017, 11:05 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Let's make this real easy so the board can get back to Trump.

Do you think the kids were protesting Pence's right to free speech? All it takes is a yes or no. No retort will be offered.

It does not sound like it to me, given the description of their actions. So I think no.

If the students get together and sign a manifesto saying they are against the right to free speech, or Pence's right to free speech, and not, as I suspect, Pence/Trump policies, then I will change my mind.

[Dill]

(05-22-2017, 10:50 PM)bfine32 Wrote: What's that phrase folks like to use around here......"False equivalency"


First of all you cannot hear a newspaper.

Secondly; which is the "not to hear" right.

Thirdly, your example may have some very small equivalence if they had not showed up (purchased the newspaper) at all.

The term "freedom of speech" does not simply refer to speaking, not writing.  "Speech" in the 1st Amendment principle is assumed to include a variety of media.  So great point that we cannot "hear" a newspaper.

The example could be awkward on a number of fronts, but all that is an aside if you do not get the point.

[Vlad]

(05-22-2017, 10:43 PM)Dill Wrote: If you decide not to buy a news paper because you don't like the political opinions in it, are you protesting the publisher's right to free speech or just exercising your right not to hear it?

That analogy not quite there. Work on it some more.

I'll get you started...

IF YOU DECIDE TO BUY a newspaper (IF YOU DECIDE TO GO TO THE COMMENCEMENT)...

go ahead take it from here...

[Dill]

(05-23-2017, 12:09 AM)Vlad Wrote: That analogy not quite there. Work on it some more.

I'll get you started...

IF YOU DECIDE TO BUY a newspaper (IF YOU DECIDE TO GO TO THE COMMENCEMENT)...

go ahead take it from here...

Easy to think of variations. You buy a newspaper not expecting to find the opinions in it, then throw it away once you do. A protest against the publishers right to free speech?

Or the publisher is standing by the newstand when you buy the paper. You make sure he sees you throw it away. That means you think he should not have the right to free speech--or that you simply disagree with his opinions?

While I am standing to questions, maybe you could stand to one too. 

Is any protest of any speaker ipso facto a protest against the principle of free speech, or itself a practice of free speech?

[Vlad]

(05-22-2017, 10:41 PM)GMDino Wrote: Seems someone has a friend!

Good for you two!  Enjoy patting each other on the back and not understanding what free speech is.

(05-22-2017, 10:43 PM)Dill Wrote: If you decide not to buy a news paper because you don't like the political opinions in it, are you protesting the publisher's right to free speech or just exercising your right not to hear it?

I've put you two buddies together. Thought you'd like that.

Again you two, no one has violated anyones right to free speech.

What has been stated was that the students that chose to walk felt Pence didn't have the right to speak...obviously because of his beliefs or policies.

Of course they would be wrong if they felt that way. My belief is they were protesting solely because of what he stood for, not that he shouldn't be allowed to speak, which is ok.

Speaking of, how about those college liberal wonders who rioted and blocked traffic in protest over Milo Yannopolis appearance, eh?

[Dill]

(05-23-2017, 01:06 AM)Vlad Wrote: I've put you two buddies together. Thought you'd like that.

Again you two, no one has violated anyones right to free speech.

What has been stated was that the students that chose to walk felt Pence didn't have the right to speak...obviously because of his beliefs or policies.

Of course they would be wrong if they felt that way. My belief is they were protesting solely because of what he stood for, not that he shouldn't be allowed to speak, which is ok.

I missed the post in which someone said someone's right to free speech was violated.

If you are saying that students protested the FACT that Pence was speaking, or invited to speak, at Notre Dame, then I agree.
If you are saying that students protested Pence's RIGHT to free speech, then I disagree.

(05-23-2017, 01:06 AM)Vlad Wrote: Speaking of, how about those college liberal wonders who rioted and blocked traffic in protest over Milo Yannopolis appearance, eh?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/12/13/1351479/-What-Aboutism-Chris-Hayes

[*bfine32*]

(05-22-2017, 09:22 PM)GMDino Wrote: He still doesn't understand what "free speech" means.  Seems anyone who doesn't want to listen to one of his boys is "violating" the first amendment.  

(05-23-2017, 01:35 AM)Dill Wrote: I missed the post in which someone said someone's right to free speech was violated.