It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Geraldo Rivera quits Yale over college name change --"political correctness is lame"

page: 13
26
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 13 2017 @ 11:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: bobs_uruncle
History, real history, should stay in the foreground of our minds, because to forget it or hide it only predicates creating the same mistakes, over and over again.


I guess the positive is this event caused the Original Poster to go out and learn some real history about John Calhoun of whom he was previously completely unfamiliar with.

Lol now if that isn't irony I don't know what is.




posted on Feb, 13 2017 @ 11:40 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

It wasn't a partisan protest, lead by a Sharia Law agenda collaborator? Impressive!



posted on Feb, 13 2017 @ 11:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Rioting isn't illegal because it is violent and destructive? Then why is it illegal oh GREAT sage of government law?


Yes that is why it is illegal. But I asked if you knew why minority opinions should be protected and free expression is a human right, to which you replied "Yes. That is why rioting is illegal..."

What?

Surely you know why minority opinions should be protected and free expression is a human right.



posted on Feb, 13 2017 @ 11:40 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I will keep both eyes on those deplorables that now lead the nation.



posted on Feb, 13 2017 @ 11:43 AM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope
Look. At the end of the day you haven't proved that the first amendment can be infringed on outside of the government. In fact, it is rather clear on the matter saying "Congress shall make no law..."

I don't care about your speculation here. You are deflecting from my original point that the first amendment only applies to the government, so failing actual law that infringes on your speech, you are wrong. A leftist calling you a racist or a bigot to shut you up isn't an infringement on your right to free speech. It's just you being triggered.
edit on 13-2-2017 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 13 2017 @ 11:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I will keep both eyes on those deplorables that now lead the nation.

I hope so.



posted on Feb, 13 2017 @ 11:46 AM
link   
I'm having a hard time keeping up with this debate and figuring out the point everyone is trying to make. It's all over the place, or is it just me?



posted on Feb, 13 2017 @ 11:48 AM
link   
a reply to: knowledgehunter0986

Well I tried to talk about Geraldo, but no one wanted to bite so now the thread has devolved into a typical anti-sjw/pc thread.



posted on Feb, 13 2017 @ 11:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: LesMisanthrope
Look. At the end of the day you haven't proved that the first amendment can be infringed on outside of the government. In fact, it is rather clear on the matter saying "Congress shall make no law..."


Point proven. "Because it is law". I don't think you know why minority voices should be protected, or why freedom of expression is a fundamental human right. If you had, you might try to take care of it more. No wonder western civilization is crumbling.

It is naive, and wrong, to conflate free speech with the first amendment.
edit on 13-2-2017 by LesMisanthrope because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 13 2017 @ 11:49 AM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

I just don't feel like commenting on it since it is irrelevant to the point I'm making. If you want to infer my intelligence from that, do you.
edit on 13-2-2017 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 13 2017 @ 11:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

I just don't feel like commenting on it since it is irrelevant to the point I'm making. If you want to infer my intelligence from that, do you.


You're confusing free speech with the first amendment. I'm not inferring your intelligence, only pointing out you are wrong.



posted on Feb, 13 2017 @ 11:53 AM
link   
a reply to: knowledgehunter0986

I'm just a bastard in the face of essentially any and all of the slippery slope that is censorship, as it is "The Universal Language of Dictators". (well outside of se decency in particular regard to impressionable children)

I cant speak for each person, but I would argue that the liberal types in here are here to "Passive Regressively" DEFEND the SJW extremists whom are running amok trying to censor everything. They can pretend that it will end with the sorts like this Calhoun character, but when these psycho's wanted to ban Dr. Martin Luther King for not being inclusive enough, there's no limit to how far these people will go if they aren't stood up to.
edit on 13-2-2017 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 13 2017 @ 11:54 AM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

No. You are splitting hairs in order to try to save a semblance of your argument after I showed you that infringing on free speech is only protected against the government doing it.



posted on Feb, 13 2017 @ 11:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

No. You are splitting hairs in order to try to save a semblance of your argument after I showed you that infringing on free speech is only protected against the government doing it.


Ding ding ding! Winner winner, chicken dinner.



posted on Feb, 13 2017 @ 12:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

No. You are splitting hairs in order to try to save a semblance of your argument after I showed you that infringing on free speech is only protected against the government doing it.


You said it but you didn't show it. People say a lot of things. Yes the first amendment applies to the government, but you cannot answer why free speech is a fundamental human right, nor why the constitution has a law protecting free speech. Therefor I must infer that you will not defend that right in others, leaving the government to take care of it for you.



posted on Feb, 13 2017 @ 12:00 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

A liberal appealing to following verbatim the words of the Constitution, and nothing but it, on the notion the conceptof free speech, in our "free & open society".

Interesting!

I wonder if you might pragmatically stick with this approach and be all gung ho about it in se the next 2nd amendment thread that pops up?



posted on Feb, 13 2017 @ 12:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: Shamrock6

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

No. You are splitting hairs in order to try to save a semblance of your argument after I showed you that infringing on free speech is only protected against the government doing it.


Ding ding ding! Winner winner, chicken dinner.


It's right because you say it is? If only your track record offered some confidence.



posted on Feb, 13 2017 @ 12:03 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

My opinion is that it's a correct assertion, yep.

Last I checked, I'm still allowed free thought.

If only your track record offered some confidence you grasp that concept.



posted on Feb, 13 2017 @ 12:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

My opinion is that it's a correct assertion, yep.

Last I checked, I'm still allowed free thought.

If only your track record offered some confidence you grasp that concept.


Are you going to say "it's my right" every time you face criticism?




posted on Feb, 13 2017 @ 12:11 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Look buddy, you clearly have a problem with the notion that expressing an opinion that differs from yours is still allowed. I'm allowed to think that at this point you're just trying to save face. I'm also allowed to think that you're one of those folks that feels like if you can keep the argument going long enough to outlast the other person, that means you've won.

And I'm allowed to express those opinions, even though you don't like them. Why that's such an offensive concept to you, I don't really know. I can't help that it's a trigger for you, but it's not my problem.

No amount of complaining about it by you is going to change that. And I'm sure you'll have what you genuinely believe to be some smarmy, snarky, witty retort to this but really it's just an effort to keep things going so you can have the last word. Have at it




top topics



 
26
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join