Wow, we have a true leftist here, based on their post.
Let me see if they are reachable or too far gone;
Quote:
Originally Posted by Myghost
I don't think you understand what censoring is, at least with most of these examples.
Most on the left don't support the defacing of statues, we would like to see them put in the right place, a museum, where people could learn.
|
You don't say anything too off the wall here, but at least imply that you think such symbols need to be put in their "right place". Thus you want to decide where certain things can be viewed and where they can't.
Who made you the statue police to decide that some statues (that were around before you were born), now must go somewhere else?
We all have opinions, but I do not think my opinion should carry the day.
While I suspect by your comment you do not support damage or destruction of such art, I do wonder how far you would be willing to go if you do not get your way.
Clearly the leftist criminals who tore down and/or damaged the works of art didn't get want they wanted, so they used fascist tactics to get their way.
Regardless, all the violence, graffiti and destruction is coming from your side of the ideological perspective, not the middle or the right.
So if you do oppose it, why aren't you out there counter-protesting against what your ideological brethren are doing?
Quote:
|
Undocumented immigrants are just that, if they have not had a hearing. They cannot be legal or illegal. In fact, they are ILLEGALLY being denied the right to apply
|
First of all, they are officially and legally classified as illegal aliens, not what you choose to call them.
Two questions and one point;
Why shouldn't they follow the law and try to immigrate legally like the 1 million plus per year that does?
Second, if you had your way, would you change their classification to a different term that sounds less accurate just to be PC?
Just because a leftist judge or two (that are trying to make law rather than properly interpret the Constitution) say illegal aliens
are entitled to XYZ, does make it a valid claim. They are not US citizens, therefore they do not have such "rights" under our law.
Ultimately what undermines even the tiniest fraction of what you claim, is that they can try to get into our country by legal methods, yet choose not to.
Thus game, set, and match!
Quote:
|
Gone with the wind is temporary. They will put it back up with context. Unedited.
|
You have no clue if what you are speculating on will come about. It could very well be edited (though the claim will be for time, not content).
Let me give you but one example of where leftist PC types edited a movie and it complete ruins a critical scene.
Funny enough it undermines the ability to show how racist the character is.
In the movie "Betrayed", the main charterer is suspected of being a violent racist. So a female undercover agent is assigned. As I recall, she falls for the guy, and doesn't believe he is the racist she was assigned to find.
Yet is a scene where she is beside him when he makes a commentary about black people, his comment about them being "mud people" is edited out.
In the movie, that is the point where she realizes he is the racist, and she is horrified to be sleeping with the enemy (so to speak).
But the edited version takes out the term "mud people", so the audience doesn't get to realize he is the racist (yet), and it makes no sense why the female FBI agent becomes so cold to him at that point in the movie.
The point being that many a movie is edited to try and be PC under the guise of not wanting to offend anyone's delicate sensibilities.
Thus the art has been altered, all in the name of PC from a social justice warriors warped viewpoint,
Just as important, will the so called "context" that precedes the movie as you envision, be reflective of a moderate point of view, or a liberal/leftist one?
Real question!
Don't even bother to deflect, as we already know it will have a PC leftist slant.
Quote:
|
To me (FWIW), differnt times, different rules is fine (just like Kavenaugh), but for those watching it today, a reminder that what was acceptable then may not be the norm now is healthy, IMO
|
What the heck are you talking about.
I wouldn't have understood your point anyway, but throwing in Kavanaugh really has me
Quote:
All your BLM/Floyd stuff is just your oppinion. Everyone has a right to be heard, and others have a right to tune them out. Just like Trump. he "demands" we listen to his lies. We all get to choose how much attention we'll pay him.
Do you get mad that he is trying to censor the media? I doubt it.
|
I don't know or recall the poster you were responding to, but to imply Trump is worse than Obama about his assault on the press/media is misguided at best, or ideologically driven at the worst.
Sure, Trump like no other president has been a critic and verbally attacking the press/media. That said, he has been assailed like no other president from back when he was just a candidate.
So don't try to imply they were fair to him, like they were they fawned over Obama.
Most importantly, while Trump says some outlandish things toward the press, it is words, not actions.
Obama on the other hand actually did several things which were well beyond the pale.
However, don't take my word for it, here are a few lefty sources who say the same thing;
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...ociated-press/
https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...-us-government
Of course moderate or right leaning sources would have been more harsh, but these alone will show how Obama (presumably who you voted for twice) actually did what anyone should be aghast at in our constitutional republic.
If you were intellectually honest, in comparing the two, you (as other liberals have) should acknowledge as much.
`
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.
