It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Who does free speech help more: liberals or conservatives?

page: 9
<< 6  7  8   >>

log in


posted on Jan, 15 2014 @ 12:05 AM

reply to post by darkbake

We'll see how it goes, but I think you misunderstand some things about TEA Party members. For one, I am a TEA Party member. There are a decent number of libertarian leaning sorts in the TEA Party.

Hmm... I am willing to bet you are right. When the Tea Party first came out, I was in support of them just like I was in support of the Occupy movement.

There have even been studies done that show that Tea Party members are the best at math (which is important because it shows they are the most logical and least delusional from the political parties) - however, Republicans were the worst.

I think what must have happened was I was persuaded by the MSM and propaganda campaigns to dislike the TEA party, in reality, though, I'm signed up as a Tea Party member myself as well as a Democrat, I get invited to rallies for both parties, interesting, right?

I think I have even helped with campaigns for both parties - I did a lot of stuff for Obama back during the Primaries before he became a Statist. The Tea Party members usually have meetings with guest speakers and such.
edit on 15amWed, 15 Jan 2014 00:08:02 -0600kbamkAmerica/Chicago by darkbake because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 15 2014 @ 12:14 AM


Free speech should be exercised and respected by all.

By the way. Liberals = conservatives = democrats = republicans = Pile of Shi...

so, I could call you any type of pervert imaginable and have it printed in the local paper, and you would be just fine with that? there are limits to everything, and that as well should be respected.

I think the point here is that if someone is saying a legitimate perspective and even has facts to back it up, their speech should not be suppressed because it is "offensive."

In the Duck Dynasty case, for example, the old man was asked what his opinion on sin was, and he gave a legitimate answer, and even hinted that he had been involved in gay circles in his past, and that it had affected his life in a negative manner. The interview was entirely not meant to be offensive, but was blown out of proportion because it could help a certain agenda.

There are many who would use the argument "There are limits to everything" to limit someone from saying something who has a legitimate point and a legitimate perspective. Those types are ones who wish to maintain the status quo because they are benefiting from it at the expense of others, in most cases.
edit on 15amWed, 15 Jan 2014 00:15:23 -0600kbamkAmerica/Chicago by darkbake because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 26 2014 @ 08:08 PM
Well... free speech flukes easily give liberals and conservatives ammunition so they can continue to form pissing contests with one another. I'm not a fan of liberals, but both sides can be rather ridiculous.

The only people helped by free speech is libertarians.

Everyone else is just looking for some reason to get pissy.

posted on Jan, 26 2014 @ 08:18 PM
reply to post by darkbake

Don't get me wrong. There are a lot of SocCons mixed in, but the main driving force in the TEA Party was fiscal responsibility, not social issues. And while I will argue a lot of social conservative positions, don't make the mistake of thinking that I necessarily ever support legislation that would enforce those views. If I don't like having secular progressive views rammed down my throat, why would I assume the reverse is OK?

That means that while I personally believe that marriage is between a man and woman, I would ideally like to see the government removed from it entirely or have it called civil union law for everyone.

While I think that drug usage for recreational purposes, especially to specifically get intoxicated is wrong, I don't think we should necessarily have laws against it unless you can convince me we are protecting others from you and your use. However, I do think legalizing is something that needs to be done slowly and carefully because culturally, we do not have a framework for some substances like we do for alcohol or tobacco. We need time to figure out what that ought to look like. And we need to completely disengage the social safety net from drug usage. Someone ought not be supported for their vices.

So, when I engage in discussions, it may get somewhat confusing to divine exactly where I stand.

posted on Jan, 27 2014 @ 06:44 AM

The only people helped by free speech is libertarians.

Everyone else is just looking for some reason to get pissy.


posted on Jan, 27 2014 @ 12:33 PM
reply to post by ketsuko

Ketsuko, I like your posts. On to another topic. I get the feeling that both sides are playing with a fire of which they don't know the temperature. In other words, it is much hotter and more dangerous than anything anyone would ever want.

I can talk about how the N.S.A. spying on everyone allows the government access to personal data, and on how a panel reporting to Obama concluded that it was perfectly suitable for abuse if someone like McCarthy comes along again, and people from all different sides can come and debate that all day long -

But when it comes time for someone, who is not theoretical, to come along and take advantage of that power system I don't think any one of us is going to like it, and I think it is going to be worse than I can even imagine or write here. I actually see the Tea Partyers, liberals, libertarians, conservatives all being rather similar - victims.

Let me give you a single example of how dangerous this could get. This is hopefully fictional, but it is an also an analysis of the current situation.

How does someone climb the power structure to get to the point where they could abuse the N.S.A. database. Well, they would have to be driven by some kind of delusional paranoid schizophrenic thinking and superiority complex. They might not even be aware enough to empathize with the people they will hurt in the future.

More than likely, climbing the power structure will involve taking out opponents of the person who don't like him, which means the future leader is going to already have experience using information and power as a control mechanism for blackmail and getting his way.

Someone will likely try to stop him from getting to power, but realize the danger after it is too late, and be silenced. Once the person is in charge of the N.S.A. database it will also be too late and they will likely not have a political philosophy that is with it enough for anyone to agree with - but they will have the "meta-data" (which for some reason includes tags leading it back to individuals).

In one sense, many of us in America are ripe for the picking of a delusional dictator, be us conservative or liberal, and the main reason happens to be one of a liberal leaning - that we are lazy Americans - but I'm beginning to think that the hypothetical delusional dictator might go farther than going after gays and atheists,

I guess that this is an analysis of the situation and what I see as possibilities that are not necessarily having checks and balances put into place to stop them.

Is it more likely that someone like Obama will use Obama's executive powers? Or that someone fresh will come along and take advantage of loopholes in the system? Psychologically, the second option is actually more likely, because the same psychopathic traits that would allow someone to take advantage of "loopholes" would actually make their personality profile such that they wouldn't be able to systematically create loopholes in a complex manner.

I shouldn't write this kind of stuff. It is way too scary. Or I should seriously think about writing fiction or something.
edit on 27pmMon, 27 Jan 2014 12:36:50 -0600kbpmkAmerica/Chicago by darkbake because: (no reason given)

new topics

top topics
<< 6  7  8   >>

log in