The Left Is Cancelling Dr Seuss

[Au165]

(04-03-2021, 01:25 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: You'll get zero argument from me on this point, ever.

Shoot, I was just deleting to rephrase but I’ll leave it in here I guess haha.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(04-03-2021, 01:26 PM)Au165 Wrote: Shoot, I was just deleting to rephrase but I’ll leave it in here I guess haha.

Hahaha, I was literally leaving the page completely and refreshed one last time.  Feel free to rephrase, I'll alter my quote for you.

[Au165]

(04-03-2021, 01:29 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Hahaha, I was literally leaving the page completely and refreshed one last time.  Feel free to rephrase, I'll alter my quote for you.

I was just going to mention it’s actually larger sweeping. For instance, gun manufactures should lose their immunity from liability since they lobby politicians in terms of gun reform which enters then into the politics game. Essentially anyone that has ever gotten anything from the government and contributes to political parties or specific campaigns would need to lose any sort of benefits they have received since they are now involved in politics.

It’s a really slippery slope that in reality no politician wants to go down. It would be an interesting approach to get corporate money out of politics.

[hollodero]

(04-03-2021, 01:34 PM)Au165 Wrote: It’s a really slippery slope that in reality no politician wants to go down. It would be an interesting approach to get corporate money out of politics.

That sounds like a pipe dream. You have two parties that are not interested in getting money out of politics, and hey there's no third party around.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(04-03-2021, 01:34 PM)Au165 Wrote: I was just going to mention it’s actually larger sweeping. For instance, gun manufactures should lose their immunity from liability since they lobby politicians in terms of gun reform which enters then into the politics game. Essentially anyone that has ever gotten anything from the government and contributes to political parties or specific campaigns would need to lose any sort of benefits they have received since they are now involved in politics.

It’s a really slippery slope that in reality no politician wants to go down. It would be an interesting approach to get corporate money out of politics.

The immunity for gun manufacturers was implemented in order to prevent the gun control groups from litigating manufacturers into oblivion.  It does not indemnify them from damage cause by shoddy manufacturing or other such mistakes.  It only prevents them from being sued directly when someone uses one of their products to kill someone.  It's really no different than a car manufacturer being sued for someone speeding and then killing someone in an accident and them being sued because the same car had a faulty brake system.  The far left really makes a stink about that immunity for firearms manufacturers, but it was implemented to blunt their ability to backdoor bankrupt these companies with scores of frivolous lawsuits.

As to the rest of your post, I agree.

[GMDino]

(04-03-2021, 12:58 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Based on our current legal structure, I 100% disagree with this. There is legal precedent that states organizations are entitled to rights such as the right to free speech. If an organization encounters political retribution from an official, then that is now an infringement on the organization's right to free speech. I don't care if ordinary folk want to boycott the organization, that is fine, but anything from officials in either an official or unofficial capacity is an infringement of rights.

I agree with this.  I do wonder where it falls then on the free speech of an elected official as a citizen with the caveat that I  believe if Kemp wants to say he disagree with MLB's decision that is different than saying wants people to boycott or that he will sign laws that punish MLB for what it chooses to do.

But did Biden encourageda boycott?


Really?



https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/biden-georgia-boycott/2021/04/01/9566bc18-9313-11eb-bb49-5cb2a95f4cec_story.html

Quote:But until Wednesday night, Biden had not weighed in on what people who agree with him should do about the new Georgia policies, which critics say will disenfranchise mostly minority voters.


In an interview aired on ESPN, Biden said he would “strongly support” players who believe Major League Baseball should move the summer All-Star Game from Truist Stadium, the home of the Atlanta Braves — a site eight miles from where Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp ® signed the new election measures into law.

The remarks put Biden on a tightrope between defending Americans’ right to vote and calling for a controversial boycott that could kneecap people and businesses emerging from the coronavirus pandemic. It’s also risky ground for a president who campaigned on his ability to attract both conservatives and liberals to voting booths, and who has resisted Republican efforts to link him to the most extreme members of his own party.

Seems like he said he'd support the people who want it...he didn't "encourage" it.  He didn't say it should be done.

But since Trump was brought up (of course):

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2021/04/trump-major-league-baseball-boycott-georgia.html

Quote:Former President Donald Trump thinks it’s time to boycott baseball. Trump called late Friday for a boycott of Major League Baseball after it announced it would be pulling the All-Star Game from Georgia as a protest to the state’s new restrictive voting law. “Baseball is already losing tremendous numbers of fans, and now they leave Atlanta with their All-Star Game because they are afraid of the Radical Left Democrats who do not want voter I.D., which is desperately needed, to have anything to do with our elections,” Trump said in a statement.  “Boycott baseball.”


Trump didn’t leave things there. The former president also said that “all of the woke companies that are interfering with Free and Fair Elections” should also be boycotted. “And in case there was any doubt who he was referring to he went on to call out a few companies by name: “Are you listening Coke, Delta, and all!”


Trump released his statement shortly after MLB Commissioner Robert Manfred announced the decision to move the 2021 All-Star Game out of Atlanta. “Major League Baseball fundamentally supports voting rights for all Americans and opposes restrictions to the ballot box,” Manfred said in a statement. The decision, he said, was made after engaging in “thoughtful conversations with Clubs, former and current players, the Players Association, and The Players Alliance, among others, to listen to their views.” After those conversations, Manfred said he “decided that the best way to demonstrate our values as a sport is by relocating this year’s All-Star Game and MLB Draft.”

Once again the effort to compare Biden to Trump falls far short because it just isn't the truth.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(04-03-2021, 03:04 PM)GMDino Wrote: I agree with this.  I do wonder where it falls then on the free speech of an elected official as a citizen with the caveat that I  believe if Kemp wants to say he disagree with MLB's decision that is different than saying wants people to boycott or that he will sign laws that punish MLB for what it chooses to do.

But did Biden encourageda boycott?


Really?



https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/biden-georgia-boycott/2021/04/01/9566bc18-9313-11eb-bb49-5cb2a95f4cec_story.html




Seems like he said he'd support the people who want it...he didn't "encourage" it.  He didn't say it should be done.

But since Trump was brought up (of course):

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2021/04/trump-major-league-baseball-boycott-georgia.html



Once again the effort to compare Biden to Trump falls far short because it just isn't the truth.

Dear lord, you are willfully blind when it comes to your side of the partisan divide.  Biden flat out endorsed the boycott, any attempt to mealy mouth your way around that is just that.  Also, the comparison to Trump was not in their actions, but in the response of others to those actions, which you didn't address and we all know why.  

[Belsnickel]

(04-03-2021, 01:04 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Let me rephrase.  Once you decide to get into politics you shouldn't be shocked when you're involved in politics.  I have to wonder if there is something in MLB's antitrust exemption that addresses this.  As for first amendment rights, you are correct, the government cannot punish you for speech, but that opens up a can of worms about what constitutes punishment.  Using your own logic how is Biden not engaging in the exact same behavior by encouraging the boycott?  I know you don't fall into this category, but if Trump advocated a boycott, and got one, for a far left law passed in Washington then people's heads would be exploding.  I think Biden initiating this really took the gloves off the whole process.

(04-03-2021, 04:26 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Dear lord, you are willfully blind when it comes to your side of the partisan divide.  Biden flat out endorsed the boycott, any attempt to mealy mouth your way around that is just that.  Also, the comparison to Trump was not in their actions, but in the response of others to those actions, which you didn't address and we all know why.  

So, I knew nothing about Biden's commentary until this whole exchange. After looking it up and reading the transcripts, here are my thoughts. Biden endorsed the moving of the All-Star game. Is that an overall endorsement of a boycott? What difference is there between a private organization and the government of Georgia? Does the free speech protection extend to governments in that way? These are questions we have to take into consideration before truly making the comparison, there. I don't see it as a good comparison to a president calling for a boycott of a business or other private organization, which we have seen several times in recent years.

Now, what will be interesting is how this all will affect the film industry in Georgia. There is a ton of stuff filmed in Georgia, and we all know Hollywood will be looking at all of this askance.

[Au165]

(04-03-2021, 02:10 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: The immunity for gun manufacturers was implemented in order to prevent the gun control groups from litigating manufacturers into oblivion.  It does not indemnify them from damage cause by shoddy manufacturing or other such mistakes.  It only prevents them from being sued directly when someone uses one of their products to kill someone.  It's really no different than a car manufacturer being sued for someone speeding and then killing someone in an accident and them being sued because the same car had a faulty brake system.  The far left really makes a stink about that immunity for firearms manufacturers, but it was implemented to blunt their ability to backdoor bankrupt these companies with scores of frivolous lawsuits.

As to the rest of your post, I agree.

Yep, but it’s a special and specific immunity, like a anti trust exemption, and since they are in politics they will need to lose that. In reality I am being facetious. Government led retribution against private business actions that are “speech” via legislative action won’t hold up under review.

Considering the legislative action is unrelated to the action of the business and being publicly tied to the unrelated action it’s actually very dangerous to meeting the criteria for extortion.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(04-03-2021, 04:51 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: So, I knew nothing about Biden's commentary until this whole exchange. After looking it up and reading the transcripts, here are my thoughts. Biden endorsed the moving of the All-Star game. Is that an overall endorsement of a boycott? What difference is there between a private organization and the government of Georgia? Does the free speech protection extend to governments in that way? These are questions we have to take into consideration before truly making the comparison, there. I don't see it as a good comparison to a president calling for a boycott of a business or other private organization, which we have seen several times in recent years.

No, it's not the same as calling for a straight boycott.  But neither is it GM's perception that Biden didn't endorse a moving of the game.  He absolutely did that.  He's essentially doing the same thing as Trump, but in a much more subtle fashion.  It's like when Christopher gave Patsi the nod to steal the fiber optic cable from the Esplanade construction site.  

Quote:Now, what will be interesting is how this all will affect the film industry in Georgia. There is a ton of stuff filmed in Georgia, and we all know Hollywood will be looking at all of this askance.

I think that's easily predictable.  The film industry has woke coming out of their own ass, to their significant financial detriment.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(04-03-2021, 05:40 PM)Au165 Wrote: Yep, but it’s a special and specific immunity, like a anti trust exemption, and since they are in politics they will need to lose that. In reality I am being facetious. Government led  retribution against private business actions that are “speech” via legislative action won’t hold up under review.

I see what you're driving at, but it's not a direct comparison.  The gun industry lobbies for itself, like every other industry on the planet.  Now, if they called for a boycott of California due to CA's ridiculous gun laws then you'd have a more direct comparison.  I am not personally aware of that type of situation.  Even if one existed specific to one company, why would that then negate protections for other manufacturers not engaged in that activity?

[NATI BENGALS]

(04-03-2021, 01:56 PM)hollodero Wrote: That sounds like a pipe dream. You have two parties that are not interested in getting money out of politics, and hey there's no third party around.

That’s not all the way true. HR1 the voting bill democrats recently passed is attempting to do away with some of the money influence on politics.

[Belsnickel]

(04-03-2021, 05:45 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: No, it's not the same as calling for a straight boycott.  But neither is it GM's perception that Biden didn't endorse a moving of the game.  He absolutely did that.  He's essentially doing the same thing as Trump, but in a much more subtle fashion.  It's like when Christopher gave Patsi the nod to steal the fiber optic cable from the Esplanade construction site.  

Eh, I still have a hard time with the comparison as we're comparing political retribution against a government versus political retribution against a private entity. Something I hadn't thought of with my previous response is that retribution from the federal government for something they disagree with on the state level is the bread and butter of federalism in this country. We are constantly using bribes and threats of punishment with states to get them to fall in line with federal law. It's why the drinking age is what it is around the country, for instance. So while this instance with Biden is a different format, it falls in line with how our systems work and I can't see it on the same level as Trump calling for boycotts of private entities while he was in office. Him calling for the boycott right now doesn't matter to me at all, just what he did while in office.

[hollodero]

(04-03-2021, 05:56 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: That’s not all the way true. HR1 the voting bill democrats recently passed is attempting to do away with some of the money influence on politics.

As I found to be true with many things, the repubulican party usually is more ruthless and cynical and most of the time the "even worse" party. And I suppose it is in that matter also. But I guess democrats are deeply entangled into the money and interest group and lobbying machine as well and would probably not go nearly as far as needed to really get money out of politics.

[Au165]

(04-03-2021, 05:48 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I see what you're driving at, but it's not a direct comparison.  The gun industry lobbies for itself, like every other industry on the planet.  Now, if they called for a boycott of California due to CA's ridiculous gun laws then you'd have a more direct comparison.  I am not personally aware of that type of situation.  Even if one existed specific to one company, why would that then negate protections for other manufacturers not engaged in that activity?

Why is getting involved in politics one way okay but another isn’t? One is actually making business decisions that can be influenced by politically sensitive topics, but still business decisions,the other is directly getting involved in politics via large sums of money lobbying congressman to cater to them.

It would seem a business has more of a right to make their business decisions based off whatever is good for their business over trying to buy political favors. Also, the extortion piece of this shouldn’t be dismissed. You have a politician essentially using the power of the government to threaten a private business over their protected speech. They are attempting to attack an unrelated aspect of the business because they said/did something they didn’t like. As someone (you) who always talks about protected speech, I am surprised you want the government attacking private businesses for their personal beliefs.

[*Nately120*]

(04-03-2021, 05:45 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I think that's easily predictable.  The film industry has woke coming out of their own ass, to their significant financial detriment.

The film industry is also pretty complicit in our society's fetishization of guns, so let's call it a wash.   

[samhain]

While I'm for MLB moving the ASG for the reasons they are doing it, I'm afraid the decision will likely hurt they very people they are trying to protect more than anyone. Atlanta isn't exactly the right-wing epicenter of Georgia. It's the exact opposite. Most MAGA types out in rural Georgia could give a shit about whether or not Atlanta benefits from getting the event. It's a foregone conclusion that both black businesses and black workers in Atlanta will make less money than they would if the event remained. The mayor seems pretty upset about it, and she most certainly had zero to do with the election reform effort.

The principle is commendable, but the consequence probably doesn't effect the people it's targeting very much at all.

[Tiger Teeth]

(04-03-2021, 07:34 PM)hollodero Wrote: As I found to be true with many things, the repubulican party usually is more ruthless and cynical and most of the time the "even worse" party. And I suppose it is in that matter also. But I guess democrats are deeply entangled into the money and interest group and lobbying machine as well and would probably not go nearly as far as needed to really get money out of politics.

Yeah, I'm moving outta' here.  What's the name of that town where they tore down the street sign over there.  Any nice places for sell?  This country is going down in flames.

[Belsnickel]

(04-03-2021, 10:55 PM)samhain Wrote: While I'm for MLB moving the ASG for the reasons they are doing it, I'm afraid the decision will likely hurt they very people they are trying to protect more than anyone. Atlanta isn't exactly the right-wing epicenter of Georgia. It's the exact opposite. Most MAGA types out in rural Georgia could give a shit about whether or not Atlanta benefits from getting the event. It's a foregone conclusion that both black businesses and black workers in Atlanta will make less money than they would if the event remained. The mayor seems pretty upset about it, and she most certainly had zero to do with the election reform effort.

The principle is commendable, but the consequence probably doesn't effect the people it's targeting very much at all.

This is definitely the sad reality of any sort of boycott, to be quite honest. I try to explain this to my wife who still refuses to get Chick-fil-A. The amount of money the corporation gets from my number one with a diet lemonade is tiny in comparison to the money in the pockets of the workers and franchisers that are a part of our local economy. This will have a negative impact on the economy of Atlanta and the surrounding area which is a liberal area of the state and was the area targeted by these voter suppression measures.

[GMDino]

(04-03-2021, 04:51 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: So, I knew nothing about Biden's commentary until this whole exchange. After looking it up and reading the transcripts, here are my thoughts. Biden endorsed the moving of the All-Star game. Is that an overall endorsement of a boycott? What difference is there between a private organization and the government of Georgia? Does the free speech protection extend to governments in that way? These are questions we have to take into consideration before truly making the comparison, there. I don't see it as a good comparison to a president calling for a boycott of a business or other private organization, which we have seen several times in recent years.

Now, what will be interesting is how this all will affect the film industry in Georgia. There is a ton of stuff filmed in Georgia, and we all know Hollywood will be looking at all of this askance.

Biden said if the do it I will support them. The implied is if they don't I will support them too.

Trump literally says "Boycott Baseball".

Two different things entirely.

Hollywood will move some filming and some actors will refuse to work there.  Same as happened before in NC with the bathroom bill.

And people will throw around the term "woke" because they heard it makes "libruls" look bad.