DocBarrister wrote: ↑Wed Jun 24, 2020 2:21 am
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.
Does he not have the right, under the rules of this forum, to vehemently express his view that the titles are blatantly racist?
BTW, you have zero Constitutional rights in this or any other forum. Government isn't involved.
Re: Race in America- Week 5: A “Racial Jungle” of Tension
CU88 wrote: ↑Wed Jun 24, 2020 8:19 am
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
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.
Does this also mean those delicious Famous Amos chocolate chip cookies are now a symbol of hatred and exploitation of black folks? I always thought they were just really tasty cookies you could buy in the snack machine. Who knew??? I heard Eskimo Pies are now also politically incorrect. Land O Lakes is chit canning the indian woman on the box of their butter. Contadina tomato paste better get rid of that Italian woman on their can. Juan Valdez... asta la vista baby... your history pal.
Re: Race in America- Week 5: A “Racial Jungle” of Tension
CU88 wrote: ↑Wed Jun 24, 2020 8:19 am
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
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.
Does this also mean those delicious Famous Amos chocolate chip cookies are now a symbol of hatred and exploitation of black folks? I always thought they were just really tasty cookies you could buy in the snack machine. Who knew??? I heard Eskimo Pies are now also politically incorrect. Land O Lakes is chit canning the indian woman on the box of their butter. Contadina tomato paste better get rid of that Italian woman on their can. Juan Valdez... asta la vista baby... your history pal.
Next we will need to ban Crayola....because children will see color.
DocBarrister wrote: ↑Wed Jun 24, 2020 2:21 am
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.
Does he not have the right, under the rules of this forum, to vehemently express his view that the titles are blatantly racist?
BTW, you have zero Constitutional rights in this or any other forum. Government isn't involved.
This forum actively represents what's transmitting in the real world. Only a little less cancel culture.
DocBarrister wrote: ↑Wed Jun 24, 2020 2:21 am
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.
Does he not have the right, under the rules of this forum, to vehemently express his view that the titles are blatantly racist?
BTW, you have zero Constitutional rights in this or any other forum. Government isn't involved.
You are correct, and I believe you also are critical of people here whose opinions offend you. My point was should opinions on this forum that offend you be band as well? Should opinions that offend me also be band as well? Were do you draw the line MD? Please explain to me whose opinions matter and whose opinions do not?
Re: Race in America- Week 5: A “Racial Jungle” of Tension
Posted: Wed Jun 24, 2020 9:23 am
by tech37
MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Wed Jun 24, 2020 8:23 am
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're off base here, IMO, of course. It never used to be that people could lose their jobs because their employers are threatened by an outrage mob or fear for their lives due to, god forbid, their exercised 1st Amendment rights. The authoritarian BS has always been with us and will always be because of our so-called free society, and rights under the C, that's nothing new.
What is new (relatively speaking) is the internet and social media which gives anyone, and every hateful a hole with a grudge, a platform and inflated/delusional sense of power. Ironically, they have that right. Like all good things, the internet is sadly abused by duplicitous and deranged actors.
Re: Race in America- Week 5: A “Racial Jungle” of Tension
CU88 wrote: ↑Wed Jun 24, 2020 8:19 am
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
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.
Does this also mean those delicious Famous Amos chocolate chip cookies are now a symbol of hatred and exploitation of black folks? I always thought they were just really tasty cookies you could buy in the snack machine. Who knew??? I heard Eskimo Pies are now also politically incorrect. Land O Lakes is chit canning the indian woman on the box of their butter. Contadina tomato paste better get rid of that Italian woman on their can. Juan Valdez... asta la vista baby... your history pal.
Next we will need to ban Crayola....because children will see color.
This nonsense could go on and on and on. I guess the new decorum on this forum is if it offends you it should be banned. Who now decides what is offensive and what is not? We have just now entered the free speech twilight zone on fan lax forums.
Re: Race in America- Week 5: A “Racial Jungle” of Tension
MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Wed Jun 24, 2020 8:23 am
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're off base here, IMO, of course. It never used to be that people could lose their jobs because their employers are threatened by an outrage mob or fear for their lives due to, god forbid, their exercised 1st Amendment rights. The authoritarian BS has always been with us and will always be because of our so-called free society, and rights under the C, that's nothing new.
What is new (relatively speaking) is the internet and social media which gives anyone, and every hateful a hole with a grudge, a platform and inflated/delusional sense of power. Ironically, they have that right. Like all good things, the internet is sadly abused by duplicitous and deranged actors.
DocBarrister wrote: ↑Wed Jun 24, 2020 2:21 am
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.
You missed my point. This place is governed by the people who own and run it and they reserve the right to make the rules and enforce them. If you don't like that,, you are free to go elsewhere to a place that suits your need to express yourself. Here's another example, you make a reservation at a restaurant for dinner and once seated you start screaming and and complaining to the staff about service, politics or whatever. They have a right at that point to ask you to leave and not serve you. ...and that is their decision and not much, if anything, you could do about it (without getting arrested).
I don't recall mentioning what I'm offended about. It appears that you are projecting something onto me that I didn't say.
DocBarrister wrote: ↑Wed Jun 24, 2020 2:21 am
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.
Does he not have the right, under the rules of this forum, to vehemently express his view that the titles are blatantly racist?
BTW, you have zero Constitutional rights in this or any other forum. Government isn't involved.
You are correct, and I believe you also are critical of people here whose opinions offend you. My point was should opinions on this forum that offend you be band as well? Should opinions that offend me also be band as well? Were do you draw the line MD? Please explain to me whose opinions matter and whose opinions do not?
All Opinions Matter
Including mine.
Of course I vehemently, though I hope usually respectfully (I'm not perfect), disagree with other posters.
On "banned", I disagreed with the post calling for a poster to be banned, simply because his posts are so often mere partisan trolling. I find much of it offensive, but rarely crossing the lines of the agreed upon behaviors for this part of the forum.
I do think that it is appropriate for this forum to have standards different from Hamsterdam, where it's no holds barred. So, when there's blatant racism, it's a serious question as to whether that's truly ok in this part of the forum rather than Hamsterdam threads.
not likely it was a shake shack employee, either. closest one is 45 min away and everything would've melted.
looks like we're tied 1 to 1.
best of 7?
Man...all my life I thought people were being lynched by being hung with a noose. I never knew it was called a garage pull. Bubba Wallace is a goddamn fool. Every garage door must have the exact same garage pull. How he did not know that is beyond me. He is just playing the victim like they all do.
#Defund NASCAR
… man, what do you expect from a sport that only knows how to make left hand turns?
Watkins Glenn begs to differ........you win there...YOU are a race car driver.
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.
Well, since the net moving master, AFAN, has prepared those paying attention, well.....well.
Define the US Military first? National guard, which DO get deployed, are THEY part of the US Military?
We can start with Kent State.
Or, rather, to further point out your lack of reading or knowledge of US history
Did Patton/McCarthur ever attack US citizens on US soil? (HINT: Bonus Army, early 1930's )
Did a WW1 "flying ace" drop bombs on US citizens, flying over US soil? (Hint: Battle of Blair Mountain )
Re: Race in America- Week 5: A “Racial Jungle” of Tension
MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Wed Jun 24, 2020 8:23 am
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're off base here, IMO, of course. It never used to be that people could lose their jobs because their employers are threatened by an outrage mob or fear for their lives due to, god forbid, their exercised 1st Amendment rights. The authoritarian BS has always been with us and will always be because of our so-called free society, and rights under the C, that's nothing new.
What is new (relatively speaking) is the internet and social media which gives anyone, and every hateful a hole with a grudge, a platform and inflated/delusional sense of power. Ironically, they have that right. Like all good things, the internet is sadly abused by duplicitous and deranged actors.
"Fear for their lives" crosses an important line. Not remotely ok.
Losing revenue is a choice.
I have no issue with corporations being faced with making that choice, they created and profited from brands that no longer will be purchased by a very large segment of the population. They are free to keep the brand and lose revenue or they can choose to re-brand. Up to them.
I don't see that in the slightest as 'authoritarian'. It's capitalist free market driven.
Now, if the government was to step in and evaluate each brand for its 'offensive' undertones, ok, now we're into constitutional territory. Same was true for the government getting involved in which Hollywood writers could be employed in the '50's. Not ok. At all.
Yes, the new technology enables the spread of vile 'speech' faster than ever before...though I suspect the same was said of the printing press, radio, TV, etc.
IMO, we remain in a bit of a 'Wild West' period of the new technologies, with insufficient guard rails agreed upon that check the spread of the most vile stuff. For instance, we've previously agreed upon standards for fraudulent advertising that restrict or punish the worst of such, but we haven't figured out yet how to check the spread of vilest of misinformation, false speech, racist speech, etc...indeed these platforms actually accelerate the spread of the most inflammatory speech rather than the most truthful.
Can we figure this out better? Yes, I think so.
Re: Yet another racist thread title?
Posted: Wed Jun 24, 2020 9:48 am
by admin
DocBarrister wrote: ↑Wed Jun 24, 2020 2:21 am
Seriously, Administrator ... your forum is becoming an embarrassment. Will you please change the racist titles of Kramerica’s two threads?
DocBarrister
Kramerica, Doc is not wrong. The title seems to be speaking to one specific ethnic group and in a derogatory manner. You want to try and explain your "Racial Jungle" title? Refering to the Coronavirus as the Chinese Coronavirus has, at least, some subtlety to the insensitivity. But "Racial Jungle"? Kramerica, care to explain...
Re: Race in America- Week 5: A “Racial Jungle” of Tension
CU88 wrote: ↑Wed Jun 24, 2020 8:19 am
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
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.
YA, you are missing the point, and smarter than that posting.
Or are you telling me that you are upset, as was that idiot in the video link I posted, that a marketing brand use of a fictional character has changed? (And I am being kind, as I really think she thought Jemima was a real person)
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.
Well, since the net moving master, AFAN, has prepared those paying attention, well.....well.
Define the US Military first? National guard, which DO get deployed, are THEY part of the US Military?
We can start with Kent State.
Or, rather, to further point out your lack of reading or knowledge of US history
Did Patton/McCarthur ever attack US citizens on US soil? (HINT: Bonus Army, early 1930's )
Did a WW1 "flying ace" drop bombs on US citizens, flying over US soil? (Hint: Battle of Blair Mountain )
Kent State was the second of three on campus shootings by the “government”.
A bomb was also dropped in Philadelphia on United States citizens.
Re: Race in America- Week 5: A “Racial Jungle” of Tension
Posted: Wed Jun 24, 2020 10:08 am
by Matnum PI
MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Wed Jun 24, 2020 9:44 am"Fear for their lives" crosses an important line. Not remotely ok.
Losing revenue is a choice... I don't see that in the slightest as 'authoritarian'. It's capitalist free market driven... Now, if the government was to step in and evaluate each brand for its 'offensive' undertones, ok, now we're into constitutional territory... we remain in a bit of a 'Wild West' period of the new technologies, with insufficient guard rails agreed upon that check the spread of the most vile stuff. For instance, we've previously agreed upon standards for fraudulent advertising that restrict or punish the worst of such, but we haven't figured out yet how to check the spread of vilest of misinformation, false speech, racist speech, etc...indeed these platforms actually accelerate the spread of the most inflammatory speech rather than the most truthful... Can we figure this out better? Yes, I think so.
A big piece of what's going on today in America is this gray area between illegal and just wrong. The latter being obviously subjective. And, as a nation, this subjective line is being moved. This includes by private enterprises. Keeping in mind, private enterprises are being run by human beings. So Mark Zuckerberg has every right, legally, to have a Halloween party where people show up in black face and KKK costumes, much as Joe Rogan can have a public conversation and laugh at a distasteful, misogynistic joke. But, today, there may very well be implications for these acts. What was OK yesterday is not OK today. Metaphorically, the older guy who has gotten away with saying, "I'm not a tech guy" every time his boss asks him to do something that recent college grads didn't even know was considered "tech", that older guy's job is at risk. The world has changed recently and dramatically.
Re: Race in America- Week 5: A “Racial Jungle” of Tension
MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Wed Jun 24, 2020 8:23 am
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're off base here, IMO, of course. It never used to be that people could lose their jobs because their employers are threatened by an outrage mob or fear for their lives due to, god forbid, their exercised 1st Amendment rights. The authoritarian BS has always been with us and will always be because of our so-called free society, and rights under the C, that's nothing new.
What is new (relatively speaking) is the internet and social media which gives anyone, and every hateful a hole with a grudge, a platform and inflated/delusional sense of power. Ironically, they have that right. Like all good things, the internet is sadly abused by duplicitous and deranged actors.
"Fear for their lives" crosses an important line. Not remotely ok.
Losing revenue is a choice.
I have no issue with corporations being faced with making that choice, they created and profited from brands that no longer will be purchased by a very large segment of the population. They are free to keep the brand and lose revenue or they can choose to re-brand. Up to them.
I don't see that in the slightest as 'authoritarian'. It's capitalist free market driven.
Now, if the government was to step in and evaluate each brand for its 'offensive' undertones, ok, now we're into constitutional territory. Same was true for the government getting involved in which Hollywood writers could be employed in the '50's. Not ok. At all.
Yes, the new technology enables the spread of vile 'speech' faster than ever before...though I suspect the same was said of the printing press, radio, TV, etc. It goes way beyond speech. It galvanizes groups in large numbers and quickly. Those groups then act out, as we're seeing now, and use the internet as a tool to communicate/consolidate and recruit to their supposed causes. There are many lost souls out there they can now easily/quickly reach, it's cult-like. There have always been fringe groups and anarchists but they never had that ability in past.
IMO, we remain in a bit of a 'Wild West' period of the new technologies, with insufficient guard rails agreed upon that check the spread of the most vile stuff. For instance, we've previously agreed upon standards for fraudulent advertising that restrict or punish the worst of such, but we haven't figured out yet how to check the spread of vilest of misinformation, false speech, racist speech, etc...indeed these platforms actually accelerate the spread of the most inflammatory speech rather than the most truthful.
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.
Well, since the net moving master, AFAN, has prepared those paying attention, well.....well.
Define the US Military first? National guard, which DO get deployed, are THEY part of the US Military?
We can start with Kent State.
Or, rather, to further point out your lack of reading or knowledge of US history
Did Patton/McCarthur ever attack US citizens on US soil? (HINT: Bonus Army, early 1930's )
Did a WW1 "flying ace" drop bombs on US citizens, flying over US soil? (Hint: Battle of Blair Mountain )
Kent State was the second of three on campus shootings by the “government”.
A bomb was also dropped in Philadelphia on United States citizens.
but, but........an ole time G.I. said NO....no way...would the US Military KILL US citizens.
oh well, he'll just go play with mdlaxfan, as always, and ignore the facts of the world.
DocBarrister wrote: ↑Wed Jun 24, 2020 2:21 am
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.
You missed my point. This place is governed by the people who own and run it and they reserve the right to make the rules and enforce them. If you don't like that,, you are free to go elsewhere to a place that suits your need to express yourself. Here's another example, you make a reservation at a restaurant for dinner and once seated you start screaming and and complaining to the staff about service, politics or whatever. They have a right at that point to ask you to leave and not serve you. ...and that is their decision and not much, if anything, you could do about it (without getting arrested).
I don't recall mentioning what I'm offended about. It appears that you are projecting something onto me that I didn't say.
I understand your point. A fellow poster on this forum pleaded with the moderators to exclude a point of view because he or she was offended by the content. That is my point. If your trying to tell me the mods here should censor content because some people are bothered by it. I will tell you IMO all day long that is wrong. If your post meets the decorum and standards and you are not engaged in a personal attack on a fellow poster, you should be free to speak your mind on this forum.
We should all disagree with the content of what people post when we feel strongly about another person's point of view. What we should never do is whine and b***h to the moderators about censoring what people say when they are writing an opinion within the guidelines of the forum.
Who now decides what is offensive and what is not? We have just now entered the free speech twilight zone on fan lax forums.
All Opinions Matter