Race in America - Riots Explode in Chicago

[SCLaxAttack]

Looks like tRUMP has decided to strengthen ties to his base by completely writing off Asian Americans. Kung flu now used at two rallies in a row.

Be white or go home.

[jhu72]

Sen. Tim Scott played racist and derogatory voicemails he and his staff are receiving to Senate GOP colleagues during a closed-door lunch Tuesday, according to several GOP sources.
…
Following the lunch, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) tweeted that he was “shocked” to learn about the vile messages Scott received

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/06/2 ... ice-336650

My question: is Grassley really that big of a clueless idiot, or is he a liar?

… the real question is did anyone do a voice analysis on the tape to make certain none of the callers were Grassley?

[DocBarrister]

Looks like tRUMP has decided to strengthen ties to his base by completely writing off Asian Americans. Kung flu now used at two rallies in a row.

Be white or go home.

Yep.

So ... the Republican Party has decided to write off Asian Americans (by some measures, the fastest growing ethnic group in America), Hispanics (who will one day become the largest ethnic group), African Americans (whose scientific, artistic, cultural, and social influence is without equal), Native Americans (they have suffered enough, did North Dakota Republicans really need to suppress their vote? Plus, we’re in their House), most women (Donald Trump ... ’nuff said), and Jewish Americans (the GOP has sided with the Neo-Nazis).

Oh, and all non-white immigrants.

Trump’s paranoid European American supporters are always expressing their fear of being “replaced” by people of color.

Know what? That’s already a done deal. Want a place in OUR country? Stop acting like you own the place.

DocBarrister

[DocBarrister]

Seriously, Administrator ... your forum is becoming an embarrassment. Will you please change the racist titles of Kramerica’s two threads?

DocBarrister

[cradleandshoot]

Seriously, Administrator ... your forum is becoming an embarrassment. Will you please change the racist titles of Kramerica’s two threads?

DocBarrister

Whats up doc? That first amendment got your panties all twisted in a knot? Doc B wants to be crowned as the fan lax forum censor. I thought even the commie lib folks thought censorship was a bad thing?

[Peter Brown]

Seriously, Administrator ... your forum is becoming an embarrassment. Will you please change the racist titles of Kramerica’s two threads?

DocBarrister

Whats up doc? That first amendment got your panties all twisted in a knot? Doc B wants to be crowned as the fan lax forum censor. I thought even the commie lib folks thought censorship was a bad thing?

Democrats really don’t believe in free speech. Once you wrap your head around that fact, all else makes sense.

[Peter Brown]

This video is the chefs kiss of liberal lunacy. I have no doubt some of the resident libs here are the exact same way.

https://twitter.com/henryrodgersdc/stat ... 35969?s=21

While woman screams incoherently at black officers that they’re racists. Tell me this isn’t the height of entertainment. Next most interesting point: because this was in DC, it’s almost a certainty she works in the federal government.

These people belong in mental hospitals. How do they balance their checkbooks?

[cradleandshoot]

Seriously, Administrator ... your forum is becoming an embarrassment. Will you please change the racist titles of Kramerica’s two threads?

DocBarrister

Whats up doc? That first amendment got your panties all twisted in a knot? Doc B wants to be crowned as the fan lax forum censor. I thought even the commie lib folks thought censorship was a bad thing?

Democrats really don’t believe in free speech. Once you wrap your head around that fact, all else makes sense.

Democrats are huge advocates of free speech, as long as they agree with what the free speech is. Having listened to the jibber jabber of FLP folks on this forum for many years... they despise any free speech that does not fit the FLP agenda. If FRC dogma was a statue the FLP folks would deface it and tear it down. The monument at Mt Rushmore is now doomed.https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2020 ... 619-riots/

[runrussellrun]

This video is the chefs kiss of liberal lunacy. I have no doubt some of the resident libs here are the exact same way.

https://twitter.com/henryrodgersdc/stat ... 35969?s=21

While woman screams incoherently at black officers that they’re racists. Tell me this isn’t the height of entertainment. Next most interesting point: because this was in DC, it’s almost a certainty she works in the federal government.

These people belong in mental hospitals. How do they balance their checkbooks?

Wow......so easy to understand. That she is saying POLICE are the problem. That WHITE people are behind racism, which, of COURSE, is not true.

(living in Boston, lots of blacks HATE the yellow man. )

[CU88]

Here is Americas future?

“Aunt Jemima was canceled… She was the picture of the American dream. She was a freed slave who went on to be the face of the pancake syrup." -- A student at Trump’s event on Tuesday

https://twitter.com/brooklynmutt/status ... 9289581571

More proof that r's are dumber that a box of rocks. Aunt Jemima never existed.

[MDlaxfan76]

Perhaps what you guys are confusing is that we all don't like speech with which we disagree.

That's true left, right, purple.

Indeed, what 'free speech' means is that we get to express that disagreement/dislike as vociferously as we want, without the government squashing us. And most importantly, we get to express our disagreement/dislike of what the government is doing.

What it does not mean is that because someone expresses an opinion with which we disagree, we must shut up and not disagree, or not use our own voices to compete as loudly as we'd like with the other's speech...indeed, just the opposite, we are free from government interference.

Authoritarians wish to use the power of government to say which speech is allowed, which is not.
Again, this is not left, right, or purple, much less R or D...it is authoritarian.

But free people seeking to diminish the speech, compete with the speech, of other free people has nothing to do with our Constitution. It's only when we get the government involved in doing so that we begin to involve those rights.

So, for instance boycotts of those whose speech we dislike is entirely fair game. So are counter protests.

Of course, our free speech rights have some limits, we can't cry fire, we can't threaten violence, etc and we have limitations on false advertising, libel, fraud etc.

[Kismet]

Seriously, Administrator ... your forum is becoming an embarrassment. Will you please change the racist titles of Kramerica’s two threads?

DocBarrister

Whats up doc? That first amendment got your panties all twisted in a knot? Doc B wants to be crowned as the fan lax forum censor. I thought even the commie lib folks thought censorship was a bad thing?

FYI, Cradle but have to correct you once again. The First Amendment only applies to the Federal Government and not to non-government entities.
As an example, if the Augusta National Golf Club (or a local private club in Rochester like The Country Club of Rochester for example) wants to bar women and minorities from membership solely on that basis its totally kosher.

Here is the text -

"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."

Last time I checked this place is NOT operated by the Federal Government.

[Peter Brown]

Perhaps what you guys are confusing is that we all don't like speech with which we disagree.

That's true left, right, purple.

Indeed, what 'free speech' means is that we get to express that disagreement/dislike as vociferously as we want, without the government squashing us. And most importantly, we get to express our disagreement/dislike of what the government is doing.

What it does not mean is that because someone expresses an opinion with which we disagree, we must shut up and not disagree, or not use our own voices to compete as loudly as we'd like with the other's speech...indeed, just the opposite, we are free from government interference.

Authoritarians wish to use the power of government to say which speech is allowed, which is not.
Again, this is not left, right, or purple, much less R or D...it is authoritarian.

But free people seeking to diminish the speech, compete with the speech, of other free people has nothing to do with our Constitution. It's only when we get the government involved in doing so that we begin to involve those rights.

So, for instance boycotts of those whose speech we dislike is entirely fair game. So are counter protests.

Of course, our free speech rights have some limits, we can't cry fire, we can't threaten violence, etc and we have limitations on false advertising, libel, fraud etc.

You have this inglorious knack to excuse mainline Democratic orthodoxy with the extreme end of the Republican Party. Very few Republicans subscribe to any limits on constitutionally protected free speech (those that do are mocked are mocked by mainstream Republicans), whereas almost every Democrat would have zero truck setting limits on many forms of speech (and those that advocate for no restrictions are mocked by mainstream Democrats). Truly extraordinary, but also telling, as always.

Feel free to read up on just a few examples of Democrats and their dislike of free speech:

https://pacificlegal.org/how-progressiv ... of-speech/

https://reason.com/2019/08/12/every-dem ... of-speech/

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opin ... -with-hr-1


The issue here at Fanlax is not obviously a matter of government imposed free speech, rather the common, reflexive tendency among Democrats is simply to demand that 'this guy or that guy' was booted from this site, even though it is strictly Democrats who make direct personal insults? Look, we all know the score, and I realize MD that you try to deftly carry water for Democrats on this site, which is your prerogative (I'll never tattle to the mods as many of your brethren do here seemingly every day), but maybe just be more forthright so people can engage you honestly, and in turn, your posts would be far more honest too.

[Peter Brown]

Seriously, Administrator ... your forum is becoming an embarrassment. Will you please change the racist titles of Kramerica’s two threads?

DocBarrister

Whats up doc? That first amendment got your panties all twisted in a knot? Doc B wants to be crowned as the fan lax forum censor. I thought even the commie lib folks thought censorship was a bad thing?

FYI, Cradle but have to correct you once again. The First Amendment only applies to the Federal Government and not to non-government entities.
As an example, if the Augusta National Golf Club (or a local private club in Rochester like The Country Club of Rochester for example) wants to bar women and minorities from membership solely on that basis its totally kosher.

Here is the text -

"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."

Last time I checked this place is NOT operated by the Federal Government.

Above is that all-too-common chickensh!t refrain from a Democrat that free speech is only when the the government cracks down on it. Given half a second to utilize the government to do just that, crack down on free speech, there is not a doubt in any sane American's mind that one of the very first steps a Democrat would take (with no opposition) would in fact be to eviscerate the 1st Amendment. Free speech and #2A are the leftist's greatest enemies...please do not be misled, folks. If you need to know why, you don't understand the mind nor impulse of a leftist. The Bill of Rights writ large is the Leftist's kryptonite, hence the nonsensical posts such as written by Kismet above. They do not believe in free speech.

[youthathletics]

Here is Americas future?

“Aunt Jemima was canceled… She was the picture of the American dream. She was a freed slave who went on to be the face of the pancake syrup." -- A student at Trump’s event on Tuesday

https://twitter.com/brooklynmutt/status ... 9289581571

More proof that r's are dumber that a box of rocks. Aunt Jemima never existed.

Wrong.....again.

But relatives of two of the five former Aunt Jemima actresses are displeased with the “politically correct” rebranding, seeing the decision instead as an affront to justice and family legacy.

“I understand what Quaker Oats is doing because I’m Black and I don’t want a negative image promoted,” Vera Harris, whose great aunt Lillian Richard portrayed Aunt Jemima for 23 years, told NBC News. “However, I just don’t want her legacy lost, because if her legacy is swept under the rug and washed away, it’s as if she never was a person.

[6ftstick]

Seriously, Administrator ... your forum is becoming an embarrassment. Will you please change the racist titles of Kramerica’s two threads?

DocBarrister

Whats up doc? That first amendment got your panties all twisted in a knot? Doc B wants to be crowned as the fan lax forum censor. I thought even the commie lib folks thought censorship was a bad thing?

Hey it's his country.

Can't wait for his tolerance to trickle down. Bet my constitutional rights will be protected fervently.

[runrussellrun]

The US military attacking American citizens will never happen. AGAIN ??? When I was in the army I would have steadfastly refused ANY order to engage American citizens. We all pledged to defend the country against all enemies foreign and domestic. Our fellow Americans are not and never will be the enemy. Law enforcement needs to take care of that problem, if it ever becomes one.

what is past is prologue........

.....no cents of history

[cradleandshoot]

Seriously, Administrator ... your forum is becoming an embarrassment. Will you please change the racist titles of Kramerica’s two threads?

DocBarrister

Whats up doc? That first amendment got your panties all twisted in a knot? Doc B wants to be crowned as the fan lax forum censor. I thought even the commie lib folks thought censorship was a bad thing?

FYI, Cradle but have to correct you once again. The First Amendment only applies to the Federal Government and not to non-government entities.
As an example, if the Augusta National Golf Club (or a local private club in Rochester like The Country Club of Rochester for example) wants to bar women and minorities from membership solely on that basis its totally kosher.

Here is the text -

"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."

Last time I checked this place is NOT operated by the Federal Government.

So the spirit of the first amendment is irrelevant when it comes to this thread? Sounds like some FLP spinning to me. I don't stand corrected, I now have a greater understanding for the contempt some people have for free speech. So you are saying that Doc b is correct and that free speech on this forum, not including profanity is open to censorship? Why? Because it offends you? I read quite a bit of stuff on this forum that offends me. That being said, I will always defend the right of any person to speak their mind. I sorta kinda thought that is what being an American was all about. So we are all free to say what we want. We had all damn well better say what we are suppose to say.

[cradleandshoot]

The US military attacking American citizens will never happen. AGAIN ??? When I was in the army I would have steadfastly refused ANY order to engage American citizens. We all pledged to defend the country against all enemies foreign and domestic. Our fellow Americans are not and never will be the enemy. Law enforcement needs to take care of that problem, if it ever becomes one.

what is past is prologue........

.....no cents of history

Triple R you need to give us all the super secret decoder ring so your words can be interpreted by everyone. It is no fun if your the only one who knows what the hell you are trying to say.

[MDlaxfan76]

Perhaps what you guys are confusing is that we all don't like speech with which we disagree.

That's true left, right, purple.

Indeed, what 'free speech' means is that we get to express that disagreement/dislike as vociferously as we want, without the government squashing us. And most importantly, we get to express our disagreement/dislike of what the government is doing.

What it does not mean is that because someone expresses an opinion with which we disagree, we must shut up and not disagree, or not use our own voices to compete as loudly as we'd like with the other's speech...indeed, just the opposite, we are free from government interference.

Authoritarians wish to use the power of government to say which speech is allowed, which is not.
Again, this is not left, right, or purple, much less R or D...it is authoritarian.

But free people seeking to diminish the speech, compete with the speech, of other free people has nothing to do with our Constitution. It's only when we get the government involved in doing so that we begin to involve those rights.

So, for instance boycotts of those whose speech we dislike is entirely fair game. So are counter protests.

Of course, our free speech rights have some limits, we can't cry fire, we can't threaten violence, etc and we have limitations on false advertising, libel, fraud etc.

You have this inglorious knack to excuse mainline Democratic orthodoxy with the extreme end of the Republican Party. Very few Republicans subscribe to any limits on constitutionally protected free speech (those that do are mocked are mocked by mainstream Republicans), whereas almost every Democrat would have zero truck setting limits on many forms of speech (and those that advocate for no restrictions are mocked by mainstream Democrats). Truly extraordinary, but also telling, as always.

Feel free to read up on just a few examples of Democrats and their dislike of free speech:

https://pacificlegal.org/how-progressiv ... of-speech/

https://reason.com/2019/08/12/every-dem ... of-speech/

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opin ... -with-hr-1


The issue here at Fanlax is not obviously a matter of government imposed free speech, rather the common, reflexive tendency among Democrats is simply to demand that 'this guy or that guy' was booted from this site, even though it is strictly Democrats who make direct personal insults? Look, we all know the score, and I realize MD that you try to deftly carry water for Democrats on this site, which is your prerogative (I'll never tattle to the mods as many of your brethren do here seemingly every day), but maybe just be more forthright so people can engage you honestly, and in turn, your posts would be far more honest too.

If I'm not mistaken, there is a single moderator and the rules we discussed early on in the creation of this site enabled some limitations on how we act in this area, versus Hamsterdam where it's no holds barred. There was a desire to have an area where the discourse could be vehement but not become so toxic as to be undesirable to participate. We've had a few posters who refused to follow those rules and they spent quite a lot of time in timeout.

If you've had a problem with the moderator yourself, I suggest you examine why.

I disagreed with the 'boot from the site' post, as is also my 'prerogative' but I'll also defend the poster's view that your posts are way, way too often mere partisan trolling and thus add little to actual discussion.

On the substance, you're out to lunch that Dems are more than R's interested in curtailing free speech. That's a right wing myth.

Both sides dislike the other's speech. Both sides have a right to do so. We collectively as a society create standards of speech for the society in which we live. And we don't actually have the right to say anything we want anytime, unopposed.

I clicked through the first article and stumbled right away on the 'flag burning' defense as constitutional protected free speech (which it is)...yet, you do realize that Trump, to cheers, just called for a one year jail term for burning a flag?

This desire to limit each other's speech is right, left, purple. It's not partisan. It's authoritarian when it invokes government control.

Please make no mistake, Dems can and will likely over step on these issues when in power. And we should resist if and when they do.

But Trump does so daily, now.

Private parties making their own decisions about the rules for their environments, platforms, campuses, businesses is not a 'free speech' issue unless government is involved.