Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Shouting down someone and trying to prevent them from speaking shows contempt for the first amendment. Shouting down someone asking for something as simple as the Pledge. which shows respect for the nation, is anti-American.
Why is it that liberals are always the ones committing fascist acts that are contrary to individual liberties? What are they so afraid of?
If your commie friend who was shouting down the "Pledge gal" wanted to talk, he should have waited his turn like a normal human. Instead, he chose to act like a fascist (liberal) and intimidate someone with a different point of view.
Liberals routinely use violence and intimidation, as they do not respect the individual rights of others.
I do agree with you that we should not shout down others. But it's not just liberals that do that.
And the "Pledge gal" got to speak her piece. It simply took her 7 minutes instead of 4 minutes.
You're right. Liberals do not hate free speech -- as long as that speech agrees with their beliefs.
(Of course, I am talking only about some liberals.)
They don't hate free speech. Period.
Do they disagree with some of the content of others' free speech? Absolutely. Just like so many conservatives disagree with other's free speech. This thread is a shining example. Lots of people disagreeing with each other.
She, a FORMER community college professor, decided to attend the business meeting to put on a show with her little flag.For what real purpose?
That is of course the question being studiously avoided by the right-wing contingency in this thread. Do we meekly accept people taking everyone's time in a professional setting, merely so they can grandstand in pretend-patriotism? In what workplace is that normal or accepted?
But only a traitor or at least someone anti-American would be opposed to pledging loyalty.
That's not true.
An oath of loyalty requirement is insulting. It comes from a time and place where knights and nobles were required to pledge fealty, and it was about money and warfare. Kings and nobles needed money and men to advance their interests. When the United States was founded, it was a rejection of this system. The United States was founded upon the idea that the people would direct the government. There was no need for the people to take an oath of loyalty to that government, in fact, quite the opposite. It is the government's obligation to be loyal to the people, to use its power and resources to benefit the people. The Pledge of Allegiance was rooted in the fear of the Communist boogeyman. I reject that fear entirely.
The United States was a trailblazer in crafting an entirely different relationship between a government and the people. An oath of loyalty circumvents that relationship as envisioned by the Founding Fathers.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
