Dumb Political Correctness

Climate change is killing the planet according to Bernie. But he'll need a climate killing private jet anyway.
Click to expand...

He's basically the left's equivalent of Creflo Dollar.

It doesn't make any sense to me that 1 person has freedom but the moment 10 people combine their resources they no longer have a right to speech
Click to expand...

They each still have the same right to speech as before. The organization that they are part of doesn't itself have any rights at all.

If your son came to you and said, "dad I can get into Harvard on a 100% free ride as a field hockey player if I agree to let my hair grow and wear matching sets of bras/panties for 4 years. If not, it looks like SMU for me," how would you respond?
Click to expand...

What's really crazy is that all that other stuff (undergarments, makeup, hair, mannerisms) is considered important. As in, if I changed nothing about the way I currently live, talk, walk, dress, etc, and tried to walk into the woman's restroom or join a woman's city-league sports team, even the far left would call me out as a faker. So basically, 10-20 years ago they were telling girls that they don't have to conform to cultural stereotypes of female behavior, and today, they are enforcing those stereotypes as part of a definition of what is or isn't feminine.
 
Monahorns said:
Yes, I agree and those people are totally confused about the issue that the lawsuit was actually about. It was about free speech.
Click to expand...

They're not confused about it. Most critics of Citizens United are partisan Democrats. They don't like the case, because the result is bad for them, and result-oriented jurisprudence largely defines their judicial philosophy. (It does for many on the Right too but less so.) If it had affirmed the restrictions on corporations but struck them down with respect to labor unions, they would have had no problem with the case. In fact, they would have thought it was great.

My issue with the case is much broader and frankly, more principled. Yes, that makes me sound sanctimonious, but it's the truth. Keep in mind that my position is against my interests as a conservative, and I sometimes follow that pattern on judicial matters, because if I was sitting as a judge, my duty would be to the written law, not to my political philosophy. That's not how the liberal judicial philosophy works.

Monahorns said:
It doesn't make any sense to me that 1 person has freedom but the moment 10 people combine their resources they no longer have a right to speech.

Sounds like a repressive place. Glad it doesn't exist. Apart from the direct speech issue, you would limit the political power of non-elite individuals.
Click to expand...

First, Deezestan is the hypothetical nation in which I am the benevolent dictator. It would be as close to heaven on earth as you can get and not at all repressive. Trust me, you would enjoy living there. lol

Second, I'm not sure how you reach that conclusion from what I'm saying. The rights of the 10 are no less than the rights of the individuals. Those 10 have every right to speak and to donate money and as much as they want. Like I said, Bill Gates should be allowed to give a candidate $100M if he wants to. If you're concerned with non-elites, if you're a school bus driver who wants to cobble together $20K and give it to a candidate, he has the right to do that too.

Furthermore, the corporation has every right to declare a dividend to its shareholders or to pay its officers whatever money it wants to, and those shareholders and officers may donate as much or all of that to the candidates of their choice or to spend it in any other way to speak or to amplify the strength of or otherwise broadcast their speech.

The breakdown is when the corporation itself wants to assert the rights of the shareholders when its reason for existence is separation. The whole purpose of a corporation is to keep the shareholders and the business separate for liability reasons and sometimes for tax reasons. You should not be able to say, "you can't sue me. My business is what cheated you" and then say, "I am my business, and it gets to speak just as freely as I do." You shouldn't get to pick and choose based on when commingling of rights and responsibilities suit you.

Also, keep in mind that campaign finance reform is a ******** issue. Always be suspicious of a politician who talks about it, because it exists mostly to distract stupid people. The reality is that money has always been present in politics and always will be. Virtually every so-called "reform" has done nothing but enable politicians to obscure the sources of the money they raise. It's actually counterproductive.

Instead of having corporations, labor unions, PACs, Super PACs, etc. throwing money around, we should just let individuals donate money as they see fit and then require the candidates to disclose who gave them money and how much. That way, we'll know if you're Bob Perry's *****, Mark Zuckerberg's *****, Tom Steyer's *****, George Soros' *****, The Koch Brothers' *****. Etc. That's easier than having to figure out and follow what shell entities these guys set up (and often with deceptive names) to make them look like they're not as big of players as they actually are. It's also far more respecting of the rights of minority shareholders and union members. What if you're a Facebook shareholder and don't want your money going to a bunch of liberal politicians? You shouldn't have to do that.
 
Joe Fan said:
Is this child abuse?

Click to expand...


BTW... the other thing that annoys me about this is the way it's framed by the outlet. "These two don't believe they should assign gender." Well... they're both transgender males, weird how that didn't make it into the headline. Do you think maybe that might be coloring their outlook? So possibly, instead of framing the story as "not everyone thinks boys should be boys...", it should be "two people who reject biological gender won't impose it on their child." The effort to mainstream this idiocy continues.

Basically, we entered 2018 with the societal idea that gender roles were too restrictive and oppressive, and women and men should be able to do whatever they want with whomever they want without judgment or regard to what society thinks "men" and "women" should be like. We leave 2018 being dragged (by largely the same people) toward the opinion that if I want to do something that's contrary to what "society" thinks my sex should do, it's because I'm probably the wrong sex, and I should change it to something that fits society's view of what I ought to be. And if we don't have a perfectly descriptive term for it, we'll invent it rather than allowing you to live outside the properly defined boundaries of societal views of gender and sex. This is truly the inevitable outcome of identity politics.
 
I was at a symphony concert last night, and it occurred to me that, if we had not made bullying such a crime, we would not now be plagued by the abomination that is the man-bun.
 
Phil Elliott said:
I was at a symphony concert last night, and it occurred to me that, if we had not made bullying such a crime, we would not now be plagued by the abomination that is the man-bun.
Click to expand...

You mean the Millennial Mullet?

I'm no bullying fan, but it has its place. And one of those places is telling people with man buns that they look stupid.

I just wonder if any women actually dig the man bun.
 
Stat,
They each still have the same right to speech as before. The organization that they are part of doesn't itself have any rights at all.
Click to expand...

If you are correct, I would suggest ending the free speech rights of the Wall Street Journal, ABC, NBC, CBS, The New York Times, Fox News, Universal Studios, etc. That organizations don't have any rights to free speech. If they say something Trump doesn't like he should shut them down or jail them.
 
Deez,
Instead of having corporations, labor unions, PACs, Super PACs, etc. throwing money around, we should just let individuals donate money as they see fit and then require the candidates to disclose who gave them money and how much. That way, we'll know if you're Bob Perry's *****, Mark Zuckerberg's *****, Tom Steyer's *****, George Soros' *****, The Koch Brothers' *****. Etc. That's easier than having to figure out and follow what shell entities these guys set up (and often with deceptive names) to make them look like they're not as big of players as they actually are. It's also far more respecting of the rights of minority shareholders and union members. What if you're a Facebook shareholder and don't want your money going to a bunch of liberal politicians? You shouldn't have to do that.
Click to expand...

I agree in general with what you are saying here and above in your post. My big question comes in implementation. A rich person can pay people to make political speech for them and handle a law suit if it comes. 10 not so rich people can do that on their own. But they can (theoretically) if they pool their resources into a 501 (c)(4). I still have a problem understanding how a 501(c)(4) should not have the right to free speech? Is seems to remove the impact less rich/famous people can have on political discourse. I don't see that as a good thing.
 
And in Baltimore last week...a lesbian was the subject of a meeting seeking to have her pushed off of the Law and Policy Committee of the "LGBTQ Commission" for the heinous offense of adopting a position that lesbians are *gasp* female homosexuals. That's right...a female who KNOWS that lesbians are females attracted to other females was subjected to a meeting on removal for daring to not affirm the delusions of males who play dress-up.

“You might as well call it the GBTQ Commission”— Lone lesbian pushed off Baltimore committee
 
Joe Fan said:
I dont like ou or Murray. Nor that they won a second straight Heisman with a transfer QB!

But ...

.... digging up a kid's tweets from when he was a 15-year-old just to tarnish the greatest moment of his life is retarded. Liberals are retards.

Click to expand...

I think we are going to need a "day of backlash". Much like the Garland TX event a few years back (I know the cop that took those dudes down, BTW) during the Draw Mohammed contest, I think we need to have a national day of "say what you want". Let's use every un-PC word out there and then follow it up with a ...F-it.
 
Mr. Deez said:
They're not confused about it. Most critics of Citizens United are partisan Democrats. They don't like the case, because the result is bad for them, and result-oriented jurisprudence largely defines their judicial philosophy. (It does for many on the Right too but less so.) If it had affirmed the restrictions on corporations but struck them down with respect to labor unions, they would have had no problem with the case. In fact, they would have thought it was great.

My issue with the case is much broader and frankly, more principled. Yes, that makes me sound sanctimonious, but it's the truth. Keep in mind that my position is against my interests as a conservative, and I sometimes follow that pattern on judicial matters, because if I was sitting as a judge, my duty would be to the written law, not to my political philosophy. That's not how the liberal judicial philosophy works.



First, Deezestan is the hypothetical nation in which I am the benevolent dictator. It would be as close to heaven on earth as you can get and not at all repressive. Trust me, you would enjoy living there. lol

Second, I'm not sure how you reach that conclusion from what I'm saying. The rights of the 10 are no less than the rights of the individuals. Those 10 have every right to speak and to donate money and as much as they want. Like I said, Bill Gates should be allowed to give a candidate $100M if he wants to. If you're concerned with non-elites, if you're a school bus driver who wants to cobble together $20K and give it to a candidate, he has the right to do that too.

Furthermore, the corporation has every right to declare a dividend to its shareholders or to pay its officers whatever money it wants to, and those shareholders and officers may donate as much or all of that to the candidates of their choice or to spend it in any other way to speak or to amplify the strength of or otherwise broadcast their speech.

The breakdown is when the corporation itself wants to assert the rights of the shareholders when its reason for existence is separation. The whole purpose of a corporation is to keep the shareholders and the business separate for liability reasons and sometimes for tax reasons. You should not be able to say, "you can't sue me. My business is what cheated you" and then say, "I am my business, and it gets to speak just as freely as I do." You shouldn't get to pick and choose based on when commingling of rights and responsibilities suit you.

Also, keep in mind that campaign finance reform is a ******** issue. Always be suspicious of a politician who talks about it, because it exists mostly to distract stupid people. The reality is that money has always been present in politics and always will be. Virtually every so-called "reform" has done nothing but enable politicians to obscure the sources of the money they raise. It's actually counterproductive.

Instead of having corporations, labor unions, PACs, Super PACs, etc. throwing money around, we should just let individuals donate money as they see fit and then require the candidates to disclose who gave them money and how much. That way, we'll know if you're Bob Perry's *****, Mark Zuckerberg's *****, Tom Steyer's *****, George Soros' *****, The Koch Brothers' *****. Etc. That's easier than having to figure out and follow what shell entities these guys set up (and often with deceptive names) to make them look like they're not as big of players as they actually are. It's also far more respecting of the rights of minority shareholders and union members. What if you're a Facebook shareholder and don't want your money going to a bunch of liberal politicians? You shouldn't have to do that.
Click to expand...
Another aspect that I always hated, is that a corporation gets to leverage my effort to push an agenda that, as an employee or as a citizen, I may not agree with. If the CEO wants to support an agenda then they should do so out of their own personal pocket...not the corporation.
 
Mr. Deez said:
.................Also, keep in mind that campaign finance reform is a ******** issue. Always be suspicious of a politician who talks about it, because it exists mostly to distract stupid people. The reality is that money has always been present in politics and always will be. Virtually every so-called "reform" has done nothing but enable politicians to obscure the sources of the money they raise. It's actually counterproductive..............
Click to expand...
AMEN
 
Mr. Deez said:
You mean the Millennial Mullet?

I'm no bullying fan, but it has its place. And one of those places is telling people with man buns that they look stupid.

I just wonder if any women actually dig the man bun.
Click to expand...

Y'all better check your filters because I've seen HS, college and NFL players don the man bun. I personally dislike it but those dudes are most assuredly getting some serious female attention should they desire it.
 
Seattle Husker said:
Y'all better check your filters because I've seen HS, college and NFL players don the man bun. I personally dislike it but those dudes are most assuredly getting some serious female attention should they desire it.
Click to expand...

Living in Austin I see plenty of commoner man bun action and I can assuredly say the talent following the man bun is pretty low. Like lower than A ball minor league baseball low. All tatted up usually fat or too skinny and pit hair flying freely. They seem to take less care of themselves than the man bun dude themselves. Athletes get talent because of money and fame not that awful hair style.
 
Basically, we entered 2018 with the societal idea that gender roles were too restrictive and oppressive, and women and men should be able to do whatever they want with whomever they want without judgment or regard to what society thinks "men" and "women" should be like. We leave 2018 being dragged (by largely the same people) toward the opinion that if I want to do something that's contrary to what "society" thinks my sex should do, it's because I'm probably the wrong sex, and I should change it to something that fits society's view of what I ought to be.
Click to expand...

Yep.

If you are correct, I would suggest ending the free speech rights of the Wall Street Journal, ABC, NBC, CBS, The New York Times, Fox News, Universal Studios, etc. That organizations don't have any rights to free speech.
Click to expand...

Thankfully there is also freedom of the press. And each individual in the organization has a right to free speech.

If they say something Trump doesn't like he should shut them down or jail them.
Click to expand...

What power is designated to Trump that he could do such a thing? Plus, how do you put a corporation in jail?
 
mb227 said:
And in Baltimore last week...a lesbian was the subject of a meeting seeking to have her pushed off of the Law and Policy Committee of the "LGBTQ Commission" for the heinous offense of adopting a position that lesbians are *gasp* female homosexuals. That's right...a female who KNOWS that lesbians are females attracted to other females was subjected to a meeting on removal for daring to not affirm the delusions of males who play dress-up.

“You might as well call it the GBTQ Commission”— Lone lesbian pushed off Baltimore committee
Click to expand...

Lesbians are slipping in the intersectionality hierarchy. They haven't fallen as far as Jews have, but they're on their way down.
 
If you are correct, I would suggest ending the free speech rights of the Wall Street Journal, ABC, NBC, CBS, The New York Times, Fox News, Universal Studios, etc. That organizations don't have any rights to free speech.
Thankfully there is also freedom of the press. And each individual in the organization has a right to free speech.
Click to expand...

By your definition the news organizations themselves would have no right to the press. They could only print media on their private presses or if they used the press for their own private speech.
 
What power is designated to Trump that he could do such a thing? Plus, how do you put a corporation in jail?
Click to expand...

He doesn't in my world. But in a world where no organization has a right to speech/press, it is the ruler's prerogative.
 
Seattle Husker said:
Y'all better check your filters because I've seen HS, college and NFL players don the man bun. I personally dislike it but those dudes are most assuredly getting some serious female attention should they desire it.
Click to expand...

Are they getting it because of the bun or in spite of it?
 
Monahorns said:
I agree in general with what you are saying here and above in your post. My big question comes in implementation. A rich person can pay people to make political speech for them and handle a law suit if it comes. 10 not so rich people can do that on their own. But they can (theoretically) if they pool their resources into a 501 (c)(4). I still have a problem understanding how a 501(c)(4) should not have the right to free speech? Is seems to remove the impact less rich/famous people can have on political discourse. I don't see that as a good thing.
Click to expand...

They could still form an organization, but it would have to actually be an extension of the owners, not a separate entity.
 
He doesn't in my world. But in a world where no organization has a right to speech/press, it is the ruler's prerogative.
Click to expand...

Only in a world that functions by "ruler can do anything not expressly prohibited". And yet again, I never said freedom of the press should not exist. You're lopping off the arms of a strawman.
 
Only in a world that functions by "ruler can do anything not expressly prohibited". And yet again, I never said freedom of the press should not exist. You're lopping off the arms of a strawman.
Click to expand...

I am just having a problem understanding you. You state their is freedom of press. But you say groups don't have that right. Or they only have freedom for certain types of expression. No to speech, yes to press? How about radio, movie, podcast? If an organization produces the "speech" I am not sure how to understand what you are saying.
 
Monahorns said:
What does that mean? And is there are way to do that today?
Click to expand...

Yes. Individuals and groups of individuals frequently form businesses without establishing a corporation. They're called sole proprietorships and general partnerships (as opposed to LLPs, LPs, etc.). I'm not saying those are ideal models for businesses. If I was advising a client who wanted to make money, that wouldn't be my first suggestion. However, we'd truly be talking about individuals, not legal fictions.

You'll note that this is not the position the Left takes. They argue that though the government can't directly compel people to violate their religious beliefs, it can make violating them a condition of doing business. That's their rationale with forcing businesses to provide birth control to employees regardless of their beliefs on the matter. Essentially, you can exercise your religious beliefs but not if you want to eat. Of course, that's in the context of a Catholic Christian asserting his rights. If we were talking about a Muslim, they'd likely force the square peg into the round hole to reach a different conclusion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Recent Threads

Back
Top