Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
View Poll Results: Should football players and university professors be easy to fire for their views?
Football players and university professors can be fired for their views. 142 43.03%
Neither can be fired for their views 188 56.97%
Voters: 330. You may not vote on this poll

Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 10-03-2017, 08:48 AM
 
Location: Florida
77,013 posts, read 47,464,680 times
Reputation: 14806

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by LearnMe View Post
"Appropriate venues" and "appropriate manner." Also ban uses of the flag or kneeling when standing is called for. Time to make America great again and there are just enough great Americans to help Trump impose these important measures before the subversives take over!
We'll have to install cameras in people's houses to make sure everyone is in politically correct posture before the game begins. They could also offer rewards for people turning in their neighbors for sitting, eating or using the bathroom during the anthem.

 
Old 10-03-2017, 08:49 AM
 
29,410 posts, read 9,604,172 times
Reputation: 3443
Quote:
Originally Posted by nmnita View Post
There is a place to exercise your rights. You don't seem to understand that. And I am not saying they do not have a right, nor have I ever suggested they lose their jobs, I simply am saying they are gaining nothing more than a bad reputation and they are all spoiled brats or most are. This is not saying they do not have the right. We have a lot of rights, but that doesn't mean we don't pay the price, from time to time when we express them.
Yes. There is a place to exercise your rights, and we're fortunate here in America to call that place America, all of America!

Understand or not. Stand or not. Agree or maybe not. Spoiled brats to you, maybe something else to others, but either way, I'd like to know they are free to do as they feel appropriate even if you or I or anyone else doesn't feel it's appropriate. Let people have that right without restriction, or we go down that slippery slope that our Constitution protects us from. Freedom of speech yes. Fascism no.

We've got awfully bigger problems to worry about after all...
 
Old 10-03-2017, 08:51 AM
 
Location: Florida
77,013 posts, read 47,464,680 times
Reputation: 14806
Quote:
Originally Posted by nmnita View Post
There is a place to exercise your rights. You don't seem to understand that.
Which places are forbidden according to the Constitution?
 
Old 10-03-2017, 08:54 AM
 
29,410 posts, read 9,604,172 times
Reputation: 3443
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finn_Jarber View Post
We'll have to install cameras in people's houses to make sure everyone is in politically correct posture before the game begins. They could also offer rewards for people turning in their neighbors for sitting, eating or using the bathroom during the anthem.
Here you're wrong...

I think the line stops at home where we should be free to do as we wish, but out in public, where the police can monitor our actions and crack down on any forms of dissent that are deemed inappropriate by the inappropriate committee, these spoiled malcontents need to be put down! If the flag is involved, or a knee, they should be tried for treason and dealt with in the harshest manner. Trump is too lenient when he suggests these SOBs should simply be fired. That's too light a punishment when it comes to disrespecting our flag, our country and all things good and American.

Only if the dissent can't be stopped in public, should we turn to monitors in people's houses...
 
Old 10-03-2017, 08:56 AM
 
1,820 posts, read 620,786 times
Reputation: 912
Quote:
Originally Posted by 8won6 View Post
your first sentence is semantics. Right out the gate. Still didn't address police brutality.
I did. I said use something more specific.

If you have a grievance against the LAPD, do not use the US flag. Protest at the LAPD HQ. Defile the LAPD badge, which is unique from all other police departments. Of course, there are good officers as well as bad ones in the dept., but at least you did not smear the entire country.

There are plenty of black police officers out there who will dispute the notion that there is 'oppression' and 'brutality' of the police force in general against blacks and other minorities. Why have you not listened to their side of the story ? Afraid of what you might find that will challenge your made up mind ?

Here is an example...

Some African American cops say they're 'on both sides of the fence' in police-activist disputes - LA Times

Quote:
Originally Posted by 8won6 View Post
And I didn't call veterans stupid, i said YOU are using patriotic-baby talk...
Who do you think you are fooling here ? Least of all -- not me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 8won6 View Post
You're arguing your feelings and trying to say "and i'm a vet, so shut up".
No, am saying as I am a veteran -- consider my opinion.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 8won6 View Post
Time to put you on ignore.
This shows your juvenile mind -- as in you are the center.

This is a publicly accessible forum, as such, the silent readers are the most important. It does not matter if you ignore me or not, as long as I can rebut your argument, and you are absent because I am on your 'Ignore' list, the readers will see whose arguments are the more credible.
 
Old 10-03-2017, 09:00 AM
 
1,820 posts, read 620,786 times
Reputation: 912
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finn_Jarber View Post
In that case we need to amend the Constitution regarding freedom of speech with the "appropriate venues only" clause.
No need to tamper with the Constitution.

That is what the 'appropriateness' argument is all about. Everyone has their opinions on what is 'appropriate' and what is not. Let everyone displays his/her wares.

It sounds like you are afraid of being challenged in the public square, hence, the absurd and hyperbolic statement about changing the Constitution, as if we are arguing for it.
 
Old 10-03-2017, 09:07 AM
 
1,820 posts, read 620,786 times
Reputation: 912
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finn_Jarber View Post
Which places are forbidden according to the Constitution?
None.

But that does not mean we cannot debate on what is 'appropriate' and what is not.

The definition of 'appropriate' is: suitable or proper in the circumstances.

In real life, it means that while you are free to say whatever you want and anywhere you want, there are places and times that you should not exercise that freedom.

For example: Would you say FU at a child's birthday party ?

You certainly have the right to do that under the First Amendment. But basic human decency, assuming you have any, would be a SELF RESTRAINT on that right at that time and location.

If you did exercised that self restraint, did you feel your right to free speech violated ? Of course not.
 
Old 10-03-2017, 09:11 AM
 
Location: Florida
77,013 posts, read 47,464,680 times
Reputation: 14806
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roderic View Post
No need to tamper with the Constitution.

That is what the 'appropriateness' argument is all about. Everyone has their opinions on what is 'appropriate' and what is not. Let everyone displays his/her wares.

It sounds like you are afraid of being challenged in the public square, hence, the absurd and hyperbolic statement about changing the Constitution, as if we are arguing for it.
Ok, in that case all venues are open for it, which is obviously what the Constitution also suggests. There is nothing absurd in claiming the Constitution gives us those rights and the only way to remove them would be to amend the Constitution. The authoritarians here are the only one arguing the freedoms should be restricted to "appropriate venues".
 
Old 10-03-2017, 09:18 AM
 
1,820 posts, read 620,786 times
Reputation: 912
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finn_Jarber View Post
The authoritarians here are the only one arguing the freedoms should be restricted to "appropriate venues".
Who ? Which posts ? And How ?

Which part of 'appropriate' did you not understand ?

The word itself does not advocate for any external forces. It means before you speak and/or do, consider the immediate environment and SELF RESTRAINT.

I have consistently asked, and people consistently avoided: Explain why is it unreasonable to take the politics and social issues outside the stadium ?

One guy said because no one would be watching, which is patently absurd in its face in this day and media age.
 
Old 10-03-2017, 09:22 AM
 
29,410 posts, read 9,604,172 times
Reputation: 3443
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roderic View Post
None.

But that does not mean we cannot debate on what is 'appropriate' and what is not.

The definition of 'appropriate' is: suitable or proper in the circumstances.

In real life, it means that while you are free to say whatever you want and anywhere you want, there are places and times that you should not exercise that freedom.

For example: Would you say FU at a child's birthday party ?

You certainly have the right to do that under the First Amendment. But basic human decency, assuming you have any, would be a SELF RESTRAINT on that right at that time and location.

If you did exercised that self restraint, did you feel your right to free speech violated ? Of course not.
True, and the reason for the debate is perhaps to better understand the other point of view, perhaps rather than condemn it for lack of understanding...

The essential issue, to my way of thinking anyway, is whether it is appropriate to brand someone who takes a knee on the sideline, like Cap did, as "anti-American" or anti-the flag or to be compared to someone who says FU at a child's birthday party...

What bothers me is the borderline fascist effort to insist on truly demonizing and/or misrepresenting what someone is doing -- rather than at a minimum truly understand and accept the intent -- all for the purpose of discrediting the person and the message. It's exactly like the tactic of calling people anti-Semitic simply because they want to call attention and/or object to some things Israel is doing.

Wrong, wrong, wrong and also dangerous when it comes to infringing on our freedom of speech and better understanding of what is going on around us!
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.


Closed Thread


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top