Town's White Police Official Calls Obama N-word - Refuses to Apologize

reply to: captaintyinknots

I said you are defending his use of the word. Which you are. 

Actually, he's not.
He is defending your use of the word, or any word you wish to use.
He is defending your right to call someone ignorant, dumb, a lier or any host of things.
What he is stating is not only relative to the person in the OP, it is relative to us all.
Quad

a reply to: theantediluvian

Does he just go around referring to every random black person he meets that way?

That would be a better indicator of him being a racist than his use of the term in reference to an individual he clearly doesn't like.

a reply to: captaintyinknots

You forgot your Double Standard...

You know where you excuse Black people from personal responsibility.

Then you apply the standard you made up to all White people.

Nobody person should have to follow your ridiculous rules you made up for Society.

originally posted by: captaintyinknots

Actually, what I have said all along (though I have slipped into the blanket term racism for my own laziness) is that this was hate speak (which it was), and that, while it his right to say it, it is also other peoples right to react.

Yes. And you do not understand how deriding someone for their free speech is the bane to free speech?

As Neal Boortz said, "Free speech is meant to protect unpopular speech. Popular speech, by definition, needs no protection."

There is DISAGREEMENT! And there is derision. Derision is the bane to free speech. Disagreement is not. I have reviewed most of your posts. You are bona fide deriding Copeland for his free speech.

Therefore, you do not know what the First Amendment is, and I have already suggested that you go back to you commie shoe box, because derision is what they do over there.

So continue to spit your tea out, because at the rate you are going, you won't be spitting out your free speech.

Edit: Replaced antithesis of free speech to bane of free speech. Free speech dies if we kill the speaker.

originally posted by: Quadrivium
reply to: captaintyinknots

I said you are defending his use of the word. Which you are. 

Actually, he's not.
He is defending your use of the word, or any word you wish to use.
He is defending your right to call someone ignorant, dumb, a lier or any host of things.
What he is stating is not only relative to the person in the OP, it is relative to us all.
Quad

that might be in question, if anyones right to say any wprd they want was being legally challenged. But its not.

a reply to: iosolomon
No one is telling him to stop saying anything. The town is questioning whether they want someone who uses that word that way in an elected position.

Please, learn about the constitution. Its truly sad to see this many people who dont have a basic grasp on it....

His right to say nearly ANYTHING is protected by the first amendment. The first provides NO protection from social backlash.

Obama himself is a known racists against whites, and he isn't even black, he is mixed race. No one has caused him to be removed.
All those folks who still support Obama even after his public racist quotes, like the ones from his published book, have not stopped them from supporting him, even though they sure do get upset when someone else does or says anything racist..

This guy is entitled to his opinion and it shouldn't be used to force him from his job, unless it is used in all public cases. Can't just be one sided here. And we all know who the one sided crowd is...

a reply to: alienrealitythis isnt about supporting obama. This is about a towns right to question whether or not they want him in that position.


Still amazes me that the best arguments you all have are either based on "well that guy did it" or a completely misinformed understanding of free speech.

a reply to: captaintyinknots

No, the First Amendment DOES provide protection from social backlash. If we killed the speaker, there would be no more free speech. What do you not understand about this?

You even said, "The town is questioning whether want someone who uses that word that way in an elected position."

What good is free speech if you are just going to kill the speaker? Like I said, there is disagreement, and there is murder. In this case, YOU are choosing to crucify the speaker for what he said, and that, my friend, is unconstitutional, no matter how much you want to tell yourself otherwise.

So take your own advice, "Please, learn about the [C]onstitution."

And if you still are having a problem, then read all 85 Federalist papers, Benjamin Franklin's writings, and Thomas Paine's writings, and then, you should realize the errors of your ways. So do not reply to me until YOU HAVE READ most of the writings of the Founding Fathers. As I pointed out, you are very ignorant of the Constitution, and that is "truly sad to see that you do not have a basic grasp on it."

So read all those writings, then reply to me. OK? Because you, my friend, are 100% wrong (and so is anyone else who agrees with you).

originally posted by: captaintyinknots
a reply to: alienrealitythis isnt about supporting obama. This is about a towns right to question whether or not they want him in that position.



Still amazes me that the best arguments you all have are either based on "well that guy did it" or a completely misinformed understanding of free speech.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

a reply to: captaintyinknots

And your so over the place I don't even know what your arguing anymore.

Your nitpicking the hell out of the discussion and I have to sift through this mess. Give us some ground; throw us a cookie...something.

originally posted by: iosolomon

originally posted by: captaintyinknots

Actually, what I have said all along (though I have slipped into the blanket term racism for my own laziness) is that this was hate speak (which it was), and that, while it his right to say it, it is also other peoples right to react.

Yes. And you do not understand how deriding someone for their free speech is the bane to free speech?

As Neal Boortz said, "Free speech is meant to protect unpopular speech. Popular speech, by definition, needs no protection."

There is DISAGREEMENT! And there is derision. Derision is the bane to free speech. Disagreement is not. I have reviewed most of your posts. You are bona fide deriding Copeland for his free speech.

Therefore, you do not know what the First Amendment is, and I have already suggested that you go back to you commie shoe box, because derision is what they do over there.

So continue to spit your tea out, because at the rate you are going, you won't be spitting out your free speech.

Edit: Replaced antithesis of free speech to bane of free speech. Free speech dies if we kill the speaker.

Guess what, this isn't a question of free speech! Nobody is charging him with a crime. If he said, "I think that rape should be legal" then the people in that town could have said, "gee, this guy isn't right for us."

Not an issue of free speech. At all. The First Amendment doesn't protect you from people not liking what you say does it?

EDIT:

What good is free speech if you are just going to kill the speaker? Like I said, there is disagreement, and there is murder. In this case, YOU are choosing to crucify the speaker for what he said, and that, my friend, is unconstitutional, no matter how much you want to tell yourself otherwise.

Crucify? Murder? Bit of drama queen? Just a little bit? Here's a critical difference:

- Murder is a crime (including if you nail somebody to a cross)
- Physically assaulting the man would be a crime

It's not a crime to have a town meeting calling for a resignation. If that's the case, calling for the impeachment of the President would also be a crime, wouldn't it? You have no idea what you're talking about. None.

originally posted by: captaintyinknots
a reply to: alienrealitythis isnt about supporting obama. This is about a towns right to question whether or not they want him in that position.


Still amazes me that the best arguments you all have are either based on "well that guy did it" or a completely misinformed understanding of free speech.

What continues to amaze me is how you are now trying to backtrack.

Not a single poster said his words are OK. Yet there you go insisting.

We are talking about the use of a word. You lost that argument.

Now you are claiming 18 pages later that we support this idiot.

Well played....Not

a reply to: theantediluvian

The First Amendment doesn't protect you from people not liking what you say does it?

Huh? I said, "There is disagreement, and there is derision." There is truth, and there is political correctness. What Copeland said is the truth, although I would have been a little more subtle, and said, "Obama is an Uncle Tom."

Edit:

If that's the case, calling for the impeachment of the President would also be a crime, wouldn't it? You have no idea what you're talking about. None.

You are not using a correct analogy. You are comparing apples to oranges.

Calling someone who spits on the Constitution the "n" word is true, albeit politically "incorrect." Therefore, no one should be backlashing at Copeland. If you don't like what he has to say, go write President Obama, and say, "Hey, there is a thing called the Constitution. Go honor it." Simple, no?

I would even call President Bush the "n" word too, so it's not just a black thing. Now, it is obvious that you also have not read the Federalist Papers. So if you don't like what Copeland said, then go read the Federalist Papers, and if you still want to spit on the Constitution (since you'll be well-informed of what it actually represents), then you need to go make a new one...

Because, at this time, we are living under a document called the Constitution.

a reply to: iosolomon

No, the First Amendment DOES provide protection from social backlash. If we killed the speaker, there would be no more free speech. What do you not understand about this?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.[1]

Nothing in there about social backlash. What do you not understand about this?

You even said, "The town is questioning whether want someone who uses that word that way in an elected position."

Yup. And in no way does that violate his free speech.

What good is free speech if you are just going to kill the speaker?

Nobody is killing anybody.

Like I said, there is disagreement, and there is murder.

You seem preoccupied with killing....

In this case, YOU are choosing to crucify the speaker for what he said,

Actually, no I am not. I have nothing to do with this, and no one is being crucified. The town has every right to express themselves.

and that, my friend, is unconstitutional,

No, its not. I refer to the top of this post. NOTHING in the constitution says that you cannot get backlash for saying this. Again, get a basic education.

And if you still are having a problem, then read all 85 Federalist papers,

Ive read them, and not one part of them protects from social backlash.

So do not reply to me until YOU HAVE READ most of the writings of the Founding Fathers.

So now you are trying to limit MY free speech? Funny how that works.

Tell ya what, Ill re-read them, just as soon as you learn the basics of the constitution.

As I pointed out, you are very ignorant of the Constitution

Ok, then, mr. scholar: Please quote for me any part of the constitution that protects from social backlash. I dare you. Just one quote.

So read all those writings, then reply to me. OK? Because you, my friend, are 100% wrong (and so is anyone else who agrees with you).

So the constitution, supreme court, and nearly every constitutional scholar in the world is wrong?

I feel truly embarrassed for you....

a reply to: thesaneone

What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

So, many people have gotten away with murder. By your logic, all murder is ok now?

originally posted by: TiedDestructor
a reply to: captaintyinknots

And your so over the place I don't even know what your arguing anymore.

Your nitpicking the hell out of the discussion and I have to sift through this mess. Give us some ground; throw us a cookie...something.

Not all over anyplace...holding the exact same place ive held since the start.

Sorry if my responding to the 5 or so people coming at me is confusing....

a reply to: whyamIhere

What continues to amaze me is how you are now trying to backtrack.

Please, enlighten me as to how I am backtracking. My position is the same as it has been from the start.

Not a single poster said his words are OK.

Yet you all defend them, tooth and nail, without a bit of logic.

We are talking about the use of a word. You lost that argument.

Your obsession with 'winning' or 'losing' this confuses me. Perhaps, if you all would come with just a little more than "well black guys can say it", thered be a debate to win or lose.

But theres not.

Now you are claiming 18 pages later that we support this idiot.

O goody, more lies. I take it this is what to expect from you?

eta: thanks for the 90's flashback with the 'not' statement, though.