(August 23, 2014 at 12:08 am)Polaris Wrote: If I recall correctly, the unions won against that in California. They can still influence politics.

Here's the record on wikipedia.
On March 20, 2012, a Wolf PAC-backed resolution was introduced in the California State Assembly, but was voted down in the Judiciary Committee.
On January 30, 2014, the California State Assembly became the second state lower chamber to pass Wolf PAC's bill calling for a constitutional convention. On June 23, 2014, California became the second state in the nation to pass Wolf PAC's resolution.

(August 21, 2014 at 10:33 am)DeistPaladin Wrote: But when poor people demonstrate in public areas, that's when "free speech has limits".

Yeah, I think there's limits on free speech when demonstrations deteriorate to looting, arson, assault, vandalism, throwing molotov cocktails, etc. I don't think too many would be supportive of that kind of free speech, unless someone happens to be a fringe anarchist.

(August 24, 2014 at 6:59 pm)A Theist Wrote: Yeah, I think there's limits on free speech when demonstrations deteriorate to looting, arson, assault, vandalism, throwing molotov cocktails, etc. I don't think too many would be supportive of that kind of free speech, unless someone happens to be a fringe anarchist.

I would agree but that's not why the police opened fire on the protesters.

Out of curiosity, would "assault" include pointing weapons at federal agents, it is it OK when the Bundy ranchers do it?

Quote:Yeah, I think there's limits on free speech when demonstrations deteriorate to looting, arson, assault, vandalism, throwing molotov cocktails, etc.

And if the protesters aren't white...even when they don't.

Well there is proof of cops dressing as "anarchists" to try entice the crowd to riot that is one thing that is interesting. However, DP I also shared the same path. AS I grew in knowledge and compassion the GOP/conservatives positions started making less and less sense to me. Now I find my self to the left and in truth want real change in this country.

Also, on a side note, I think we should let the South Secede so they can have their corporatists paradise.

(August 24, 2014 at 11:39 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote:

(August 24, 2014 at 6:59 pm)A Theist Wrote: Yeah, I think there's limits on free speech when demonstrations deteriorate to looting, arson, assault, vandalism, throwing molotov cocktails, etc. I don't think too many would be supportive of that kind of free speech, unless someone happens to be a fringe anarchist.

Out of curiosity, would "assault" include pointing weapons at federal agents, it is it OK when the Bundy ranchers do it?

No. It's not okay for the Bundy ranchers to point guns at federal agents. I've also been curious about certain events. Was it okay when Bill Ayers' Weather Underground bombed the Capitol Building, the Pentagon and police stations?

(August 25, 2014 at 4:36 pm)A Theist Wrote: No. It's not okay for the Bundy ranchers to point guns at federal agents. I've also been curious about certain events. Was it okay when Bill Ayers' Weather Underground bombed the Capitol Building, the Pentagon and police stations?

Good to know. To answer your question, I would also say no with the disclaimer that I know nothing about the events surrounding Ayers, since it all happened before I was born.

(August 21, 2014 at 10:33 am)DeistPaladin Wrote: ...is a curious thing to me sometimes.

I was a conservative once but I was a lot more logically consistent in my positions. That's probably why that center didn't hold and I'm a liberal today.

Does anyone remember when I made my proposal as the way to save our democracy, to have our leaders care more about voters than lobbyists, to have substantive discussions replace 30-second soundbytes, to have everyone's voice count and not just those rich enough to buy the airwaves, to remove much of the money and corruption that has become expected practice in our current government?

I proposed a constitutional amendment banning paid political advertisement, replacing campaign ads with bi-weekly debates between candidates conducted under oath.

Needless to say, conservatives on this forum didn't like that proposal. It was "censorship" and a suspension of "free speech".

These same conservatives now say, "you know, free speech has limits" justifying the police actions against protesters in Ferguson.

So, when rich people buy elections, that's "free speech" which can't be restricted.

But when poor people demonstrate in public areas, that's when "free speech has limits".

When you say 'these same conservatives' who exactly do you mean? Conservatism in the United States covers a wide swath of people who have a variety of opinions that aren't uniform. Are there specific conservatives on these boards who said that then maybe you could just quote them specifically to make your point.

Otherwise it seems like you are generalizing to try to make a point which is somewhat lost, especially given that there has been heavy criticism of police action in Ferguson from many people on the right:

http://www.cato.org/blog/police-militari...nationwide
http://www.newsday.com/opinion/cupcake-t...-1.9108698
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-r...-justified

Now I respect your intellectual credibility, especially when it comes to religious matters, where you seem very well read. Sometimes though when you write about political matters it seems as though all of your information comes from left-wing sources and your idea of what conservatives believe comes from the strawman presented by Jon Stewart and others. Maybe you would benefit at least from the idea that conservatism is a diverse group of people and who espouse different ideas and when you say that conservatives say this and that and are being inconsistent blah blah blah, it's just a slightly more wordy version of Minimalist saying Conservalibertanazis (or whatever) and being done with it. If you want to actually put thought into political posts it benefits to discover people's actual point of views and why they have them, and that starts by reading what they have to say, not what others have to say about them.

So just to make clear there is plenty of moral consistency on the right. If you are expecting moral consistency from every single conservative it would be as absurd as expecting every politician to be honest. The other thing is that if their positions on free speech is inconsistent then it would be equally true that your own position would be inconsistent. Both are different forms of political free speech.

(August 26, 2014 at 3:27 pm)CapnAwesome Wrote: When you say 'these same conservatives' who exactly do you mean? Conservatism in the United States covers a wide swath of people who have a variety of opinions that aren't uniform.

I wish that were true. It would mean there are thoughtful people on the right who come up with their own ideas. It would even indicate there are many on the right who are open to things like facts and reason. In my fantasy world, that's how it would be. Our national political discourse in America would be very different than it is right now.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying there isn't one in every crowd. But conservatism in America right now is largely dominated by repeated talking points as they bounce out of the right-wing echo chamber. In case you haven't heard the saying in DC, "liberals fall in love, conservatives fall in line". Even the much talked-about differences between the so-called "Tea Party" and "the establishment" has more to do with means than their ends. The "establishment" conservatives understand the political process and are more savvy with their messaging and media presence, but their ideology in terms of what they'd like to achieve is mostly the same.

Quote:Are there specific conservatives on these boards who said that then maybe you could just quote them specifically to make your point.

As a matter of fact, yes. I'll try to dig up that thread later but it was one dedicated to the issues of Ferguson "Too much or not enough", contrasted with my thread where I proposed the idea of banning paid political advertisement.

Quote:especially given that there has been heavy criticism of police action in Ferguson from many people on the right:

"Heavy criticism"? I'll grant the second word. One in every crowd. Even George Will is a fossil of the GOP I once belonged to.

Quote:Sometimes though when you write about political matters it seems as though all of your information comes from left-wing sources and your idea of what conservatives believe comes from the strawman presented by Jon Stewart and others.

A bit of an aside but Jon Stewart is a centrist, not a liberal. Do you remember his guest appearance on Crossfire? Or his DC rally "to restore sanity"? He's made it clear time and time again that he wants to be a centrist and lampoon both sides so bad he can taste it. That he's often ridiculing conservatives is only because the GOP has gone insane.

But back to your charge, I can't say much more than "sorry you feel that way". I was a conservative once and persuaded to shift to the left precisely because I'm open-minded and seek to understand issues from all sides.

(August 25, 2014 at 5:38 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote:

(August 25, 2014 at 4:36 pm)A Theist Wrote: No. It's not okay for the Bundy ranchers to point guns at federal agents. I've also been curious about certain events. Was it okay when Bill Ayers' Weather Underground bombed the Capitol Building, the Pentagon and police stations?

Good to know. To answer your question, I would also say no with the disclaimer that I know nothing about the events surrounding Ayers, since it all happened before I was born.

It's an apples to oranges strawman. If the FBI hadn't completely mishandled the case, Ayers would have been convicted. Justice prevails once again.