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.
"Grande is pro-gun reform and performed at the March for Our Lives, she’s aligned herself with Black Lives Matter and she’s been anti-Trump long before the election. When asked about fellow pop stars who hide their political inclinations, Grande told Ellethis , “That’s wild to me,” and said that though she’s gotten backlash for her progressive values, she won’t stop sharing them."
The political use of terms left and right originated on who sat on the president's left or right in French politics. Nothing more. I could see snowflakes hating the term "right wing" though. A parakeet has a right wing.
Status:
"Let this year be over..."
(set 20 days ago)
Location: Where my bills arrive
19,219 posts, read 17,085,392 times
Reputation: 15538
Quote:
Originally Posted by travis t
No, I'm not suggesting that she be censored, except perhaps on the public airwaves, where the FCC has a say.
What I am saying is that this beautiful and talented songstress could be "song-shamed" so to speak. She helped write the lyrics herself in this case, which makes it even worse.
Then you are promoting her censorship because you don't agree with her message...
Her visual attractiveness has no bearing and reading the words I don't see any political leaning just the usual vapid garbage that millennials come up. Your drinking too much Kool-Aid..
You hear the entire seven part suite of Rush's 2112.
Anyway, why is it ok this chick is tryin to look and sound black but before tropical spray tan and whatever else they did to transform her, she was white as Taylor Swift. This should be appropriation or something.
As I've tried to point out on many occasions, conservatism (which, judging from many of the polls conducted on C-D, is favored by about 1/2 of the membership) is not monolithic; it encompasses everything from the religious dictates of James Dobson, through the Establishment positions of the late William Buckley, to the agnosticism of the late Ayn Rand. My personal estimate is that strongly-religious conservatives make up no more than 1/3 of the movement; in my home community, which went 3-to-1 for Donald Trump in 2016 (I voted for Johnson, BTW) CMT (Country Music Television) is a lot more popular than CBN (Christian Broadcasting Network).
But not so in either the prejudices of the Leftist clique who seek to dominate this site, nor the Snowflakes and teenyboppers to whom they seek to spoon-feed their doctrine. To them, every non-"progressive/liberal" is a closeted Klansman. Nazi, or white nationalist and attacks on their (the Left's) activities (the last I can immediately recall was in Charlottesville, nearly two years ago) are an everyday occurrence.
Except among the most doctrinal of the Christian Right, most conservatives are united by a logically-grounded set of principles -- the central feature of which is that personal, expressionary and economic freedoms are unitary and indivisible; you cannot tamper with one without jeopardizing the rest. So-called "liberalism", however, is little more than a crazy-quilt collection of warm-and-fuzzy platitudes, which tend to change according to whatever issue draws the most sentiment from a disproportionately-young, over-sensitiesed and impressionable "target market".
Keep spewing, you over there in left field; much of your audience will disappear as soon as adult responsibility displaces youthful naivete'; But Mr. Barnum's observation about a sucker born every minute will probably keep you in business.
Last edited by 2nd trick op; 03-20-2019 at 07:57 PM..
And there's that catch-all and cop-out term "right-wing" again.
Please be honest enough to define what you seek to demonize!
LOL!!!! No, that would be an exercise in never ending pointlessness.
To quote Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewar: You know it when you see it. That's good enough for the Supreme Court and it should be good enough for this forum.
LOL!!!! No, that would be an exercise in never ending pointlessness.
"
To quote Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart (sic): You know it when you see it. That's good enough for the Supreme Court and it should be good enough for this forum..
The words you cite are, indeed, attributable to the late Justice Stewart, but they were used to define "obscenity" (whatever the New Puritans take it to be), and not what the not-so-"liberals" seek to silence as "hate speech" -- according to their absolutes, and their absolutes alone.
From Wikipedia:
The phrase was used in 1964 by United States Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart to describe his threshold test for obscenity in Jacobellis v. Ohio. ... Though "I know it when I see it" is widely cited as Stewart's test for "obscenity", he never used the word "obscenity" himself in his short concurrence.
I know it when I see it - Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_know_it_when_I_see_it
Last edited by 2nd trick op; 03-20-2019 at 07:47 PM..
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.
