RE: Assault On Free Speech
August 4, 2012 at 11:06 am
(This post was last modified: August 4, 2012 at 11:42 am by The Grand Nudger.)
Again, political expediency. Just what precisely do you think a politician's platform is (if not their personal political views)? Upon what are they elected, and what are they expected to do -if elected- amigo?
Let's try this another way. Suppose you elected an official that ran on a platform of "traditional family values". Suppose that this guy gained control of the office. If he then, as a publicly elected official -who explicitly stated his intentions to create and enforce policies based on "traditional family values"-attempted to do exactly what he said he would during the campaign........... would you consider that beyond the scope of his office? Would you consider that beyond the scope of those who voted for him?
You seem to think that their backing down is in some way meaningful, it isn't, allow me to explain. This particular issue is very simply an issue of whether or not a municipality is going to/has to allow a business to operate within its limits that stands in stark opposition to what the city has determined are it's own interests. It is not an issue of Chick-Fil-A's CEO's opinions, it ceased to be so when the charitable arm of their corporation was tasked with making these donations (The CEO could have donated the money himself, he didn't). Rather than address this for what it is, business, it was decided that it should probably be turned into an issue of "freedom of speech". Very clever.
"Free speech" is the political equivalent of holding somebody at bloody knife-point and telling them that you have HIV. No politician in their right mind wants there to be even an implication that they are opposed to free speech, and doubly so anything that could in any way be spun to be religious. Whether or not a politician finds themselves on any given side of legislation is, generally speaking, secondary to public opinion. Mostly because their office allows them to modify, create, or eliminate legislation/ordinances if they perceive it to be in their interests to pursue whatever pet project they happen to be pursuing. The politicians in question probably want to continue their careers in politics. Does this surprise you?
Let's try this another way. Suppose you elected an official that ran on a platform of "traditional family values". Suppose that this guy gained control of the office. If he then, as a publicly elected official -who explicitly stated his intentions to create and enforce policies based on "traditional family values"-attempted to do exactly what he said he would during the campaign........... would you consider that beyond the scope of his office? Would you consider that beyond the scope of those who voted for him?
You seem to think that their backing down is in some way meaningful, it isn't, allow me to explain. This particular issue is very simply an issue of whether or not a municipality is going to/has to allow a business to operate within its limits that stands in stark opposition to what the city has determined are it's own interests. It is not an issue of Chick-Fil-A's CEO's opinions, it ceased to be so when the charitable arm of their corporation was tasked with making these donations (The CEO could have donated the money himself, he didn't). Rather than address this for what it is, business, it was decided that it should probably be turned into an issue of "freedom of speech". Very clever.
"Free speech" is the political equivalent of holding somebody at bloody knife-point and telling them that you have HIV. No politician in their right mind wants there to be even an implication that they are opposed to free speech, and doubly so anything that could in any way be spun to be religious. Whether or not a politician finds themselves on any given side of legislation is, generally speaking, secondary to public opinion. Mostly because their office allows them to modify, create, or eliminate legislation/ordinances if they perceive it to be in their interests to pursue whatever pet project they happen to be pursuing. The politicians in question probably want to continue their careers in politics. Does this surprise you?
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
