View Mobile Site
 

Ask the Expert

Signal Photos

 

Freedom of speech needs some curbs

Posted: May 14, 2014 2:00 a.m.
Updated: May 14, 2014 2:00 a.m.
 

Pastor Hegg’s Sunday column “We don’t have to think alike,” is, as usual, rooted in fair-mindedness as he supports actions being legislated against, but not simply words.

Normally, I would agree with that sentiment. Indeed, normally, actions — not words — represent the hallmark of legality within our judicial system.

However, we do have laws against slander in America, and it is against the law to scream “fire” in a movie theater, or any crowed area, for that matter.

I say the most important exception revolves around racist comments in the extreme. In those cases, such comments tend to set the racist stage, if you will, that soon moves over to racist action and malicious slander of groups of people — more often than not, of African Americans.

Indeed, racist words limited means racist actions limited, after all else is said and done.

Therefore, if we limit racist words, we will limit racist actions — which is the goal — and that is in keeping with a racially healthy U.S.A.

Comments

BrianBaker: Posted: May 14, 2014 6:31 a.m.

"Therefore, if we limit racist words..."

And therein lies the root of tyranny.

In this country there's no right to not be offended. The very idea of freedom of speech is that people can espouse offensive ideas without fear of repercussion; either the "hard" one of government sanctions -- jail time and the like -- or soft ones like losing their jobs. It's actions that can rightfully be restricted, such as actually discriminating in the workplace or physically assaulting someone.

As reprehensible as Donald Sterling's comments were, I've heard no evidence that he actually acted on his bigotry in the job environment. Yet he's facing immense financial penalties because of things he said in private. The same thing recently happened to Brendan Eich at Mozilla, who was forced out of his job as CEO for a private political donation he made years ago in support of Prop 8, something that had absolutely nothing to do with his job.

We're approaching a very scary point in this country where certain political views are now considered verboten, and those who believe in them can be safely subjected to witch hunts that can destroy their lives, even when those beliefs are never even acted upon.

The entire idea of "thought police" should scare everyone to death.


OldReliable: Posted: May 14, 2014 6:53 a.m.

Charles Barkley said it best: turn the channel if you don't like what I say.


ricketzz: Posted: May 14, 2014 6:59 a.m.

I'm not sure there is such a thing as a "private political donation"; not unless it is to a 501[c][4] charity or a PAC. Mozilla Foundation is a sort of public trust to a lot of us and we prefer that it be run in the spirit of tolerance and diversity; open source rules.

I agree that Mr. Sterling is being railroaded.

Regarding policing the "n" word; never pronounce the last consonant.

The best way to destroy the emotional effect of a demonic word is to use it so much it becomes the "in God we trust" of racial epithets or whatever. Maybe Greg Gutfeld will even put it on his list of "banned words". Uh-oh, there's that "thought police" thing again...

"If my thought dreams could be seen, they'd probably put my head, in a Guillotine..." -Bob Dylan 1965


BrianBaker: Posted: May 14, 2014 7:05 a.m.

"I'm not sure there is such a thing as a 'private political donation'; not unless it is to a 501[c][4] charity or a PAC. Mozilla Foundation is a sort of public trust to a lot of us and we prefer that it be run in the spirit of tolerance and diversity; open source rules."


Clearly illustrating the exact danger I wrote about.

Was Eich an effective CEO for Mozilla? Yes he was. So what do his political views have to do with ANYTHING relating to his job there? He made that donation on his own behalf, out of his own pocket. That had nothing at all to do with any "Mozilla Foundation".


17trillion: Posted: May 14, 2014 8:38 a.m.

This is the single most idiotic letter I've ever seen and I've seen a bunch, including many gems from Lois. In the end, there will be people like Richard in charge and we will be left with none of the rights our founders granted us. I feel I should remind Richard that it's not against he law to hate black people or to be racist, but I see the natural progression of things to come and one day Richard, they will make something illegal that you hold dear.


stevehw: Posted: May 14, 2014 9:06 a.m.

Whatever your opinion of the letter writer, or Sterling or anyone else...

This is all action in the *private* sphere, not by the government. There's no "right" to "freedom of speech" at work, and the NBA has every right to enforce the contract that Sterling signed with his ultra-rich friends.

What you all are advocating for is tolerance of intolerance. That's easy to do when *you* aren't the one on the receiving end of it.


invisiblesalmon: Posted: May 14, 2014 9:18 a.m.

"The very idea of freedom of speech is that people can espouse offensive ideas without fear of repercussion; either the "hard" one of government sanctions -- jail time and the like -- or soft ones like losing their jobs."

Really? So I can go up to my boss and tell him that he's the biggest jerk I know and his wife is hideous, and I shouldn't have to worry about getting fired?


BrianBaker: Posted: May 14, 2014 9:39 a.m.

Steve and salmon, what part of "in the workplace" did you not understand? Under your theses, I guess it would be Okay for me to refuse to hire lefties because I despise their politics, right?.............Hmmmmm. As I think about it, I'm starting to see a huge upside....


stevehw: Posted: May 14, 2014 9:51 a.m.

"I guess it would be Okay for me to refuse to hire lefties because I despise their politics, right?............."

Actually, you can do that. Lucky you.


BrianBaker: Posted: May 14, 2014 9:57 a.m.

Yeah, right, Steve. What alternative universe do you live in? If one were to even ask the question they'd find themselves in court before they could even blink.

You guys only ever seem to be able to rationalize your crazy ideas by denying reality when not outright lying.


philellis: Posted: May 14, 2014 10:18 a.m.

As a southpaw, I am incensed at this anti-left talk.


stevehw: Posted: May 14, 2014 10:19 a.m.

Which federal law prohibits discrimination based on political affiliation or political activity? (Not including civil service regulations here...just private employers).


tech: Posted: May 14, 2014 11:57 a.m.

"Really? So I can go up to my boss and tell him that he's the biggest jerk I know and his wife is hideous, and I shouldn't have to worry about getting fired?"

Um, no. You have the absolute freedom of speech to do so. However, as you noted, you don't have a right to be free of consequences. Those consequences should be rational, however.

Using your example, this is an at will state and your boss could fire you due to your behavior. However, he/she shouldn't be allowed to put you on a blacklist that forever denies you future employment.

The crux of the real issue is being subjected to an inquisition depriving you of your livelihood or property due to expressing a political or social viewpoint via speech. That others may not agree with you and intend to extract an irrational price* because you did so is chilling.

To Steve's point, if you signed a contract proscribing certain behaviors and agreed to its terms, you must abide by it and not whine if enforced.

*Beyond removing their approval and patronage. --edited.


BrianBaker: Posted: May 14, 2014 2:33 p.m.

Steve: "Which federal law prohibits discrimination based on political affiliation or political activity? (Not including civil service regulations here...just private employers)."

A compete irrelevance, practically speaking. Try to fire someone for their political views, or even be accused of not hiring them for that reason, and I guarantee you'll be in court quicker than lightning. That's just a fact, and is the exact point of my comments.


Burton, the LTE write, wrote (I repeat): "Therefore, if we limit racist words...".

See that word "limit"? That's where the problem lies, and what we see played out almost daily in this country nowadays. How do "we limit" freedom of expression, other than through the heavy hand of the legal system, and outrageous actions by private industry, EXACTLY as I wrote in my opening comment.

Put Sterling aside for the moment. What about Eich? The guy made a private contribution of $2000 years ago to the Prop 8 campaign, which had absolutely NOTHING to do with his position at Mozilla, and now ends up being fired. If he was a guy who got fired for insisting on wearing a dress to work, he'd be the recipient of a multi-million dollar legal settlement, if anybody even bothered to do anything to him in the first place.

THAT is just plain reality, whether you decide to accept it or not.

Tell ya something else. You guys should be just as worried about this kind of idiocy as I am, because the shoe might be on the other foot someday, and it might be YOUR ox getting gored.

Freedom is freedom, and you've either got it or you don't. You can't be a little bit pregnant. That means the freedom to be as politically incorrect as you want, as offensive, as outrageous. And there's no such thing as a right to be not offended.

And if you do it on your own time, it's wrong for your job to be jeopardized for it. But IF we're gonna go down that road, then remove ALL the obstacles for job actions. Meaning employers CAN discriminate on the basis of political ideology, sexual orientation, race, cross-dressing, or anything else, with no risk of legal implications or lawsuits.


BrianBaker: Posted: May 14, 2014 2:52 p.m.

BTW, the very fact that we're even having this discussion clearly illustrates the problems attached to "limiting" or "curbing" free speech and expression.


Indy: Posted: May 14, 2014 3:18 p.m.

BrianBaker wrote: "Therefore, if we limit racist words..." And therein lies the root of tyranny.

Indy: Yes, I agree, we can’t limit free speech . . .

BrianBaker wrote In this country there's no right to not be offended. The very idea of freedom of speech is that people can espouse offensive ideas without fear of repercussion; either the "hard" one of government sanctions -- jail time and the like -- or soft ones like losing their jobs. It's actions that can rightfully be restricted, such as actually discriminating in the workplace or physically assaulting someone.

Indy: Yes, ‘not be offended’ but indeed many people ‘return fire’ with their remarks in kind . . . but hey, that’s free speech and if you can’t take back what you dish out, then don’t say anything . . .

BrianBaker wrote: As reprehensible as Donald Sterling's comments were, I've heard no evidence that he actually acted on his bigotry in the job environment. Yet he's facing immense financial penalties because of things he said in private. The same thing recently happened to Brendan Eich at Mozilla, who was forced out of his job as CEO for a private political donation he made years ago in support of Prop 8, something that had absolutely nothing to do with his job.

Indy: Yes, I’m also concerned about the issue of using ‘sound recordings’ without one’s knowledge . . .

BrianBaker wrote: We're approaching a very scary point in this country where certain political views are now considered verboten, and those who believe in them can be safely subjected to witch hunts that can destroy their lives, even when those beliefs are never even acted upon.

Indy: I don’t see this issue since conservatives for the most part ‘dominate’ talk radio . . . and have a foundational presence on Fox to express their viewpoints 24/7 on television.

What I see here is that if you disagree with conservative ideology, you’ll be ‘quickly held to task’ with all sorts of retorts . . . many of them ‘offending’ . . . but again, ‘if you can’t take the heat, don’t go into the kitchen’.

The only problem with forums like this is that ‘moderates’ are usually ‘run off’ quickly since they are not use to the ‘abrasive’ partisan rhetoric. Whether this can be considered a ‘restriction’ on free speech is something to ponder . . .

In any event, if you want to put froth your ideology in places like this, be prepared to defend it. It may seem like it’s ‘verboten’ but likewise, that’s the nature of free speech . . . put something out there and people will comment on it . . . and trends develop such that many no longer will agree to certain ideology beliefs . . . but I don’t see anyone stopping anyone here from saying anything . . .


Indy: Posted: May 14, 2014 3:21 p.m.

Invisiblesalmon wrote: "The very idea of freedom of speech is that people can espouse offensive ideas without fear of repercussion; either the "hard" one of government sanctions -- jail time and the like -- or soft ones like losing their jobs."

Really? So I can go up to my boss and tell him that he's the biggest jerk I know and his wife is hideous, and I shouldn't have to worry about getting fired?

Indy: I think you’re free to say anything to anyone but indeed there are consequences . . .


stevehw: Posted: May 14, 2014 4:01 p.m.

'Steve: "Which federal law prohibits discrimination based on political affiliation or political activity? (Not including civil service regulations here...just private employers)."

A compete irrelevance, practically speaking. Try to fire someone for their political views, or even be accused of not hiring them for that reason, and I guarantee you'll be in court quicker than lightning. That's just a fact, and is the exact point of my comments. '

In other words, there's no federal law against it, and you can't find a case where someone successfully brought suit for it, but you're sure of what would happen anyway.

Truthiness!

(That said, there ARE California labor laws in this area...one of a very, very few states to have them, so in CA, one could bring suit under state law; however, in those states without such laws, there wouldn't be a case. Granted, you can sue anyone for anything, but that's not the same as winning).


BrianBaker: Posted: May 14, 2014 4:28 p.m.

Again your firm grasp of the irrelevant on full display, steve.

I'm not talking about THEORY, I'm talking about real life.

You, on the other hand, are stuck on...... something else.


BrianBaker: Posted: May 14, 2014 4:34 p.m.

Indy: "Invisiblesalmon wrote:... 'Really? So I can go up to my boss and tell him that he's the biggest jerk I know and his wife is hideous, and I shouldn't have to worry about getting fired?'

"Indy: I think you’re free to say anything to anyone but indeed there are consequences . . ."

Salmon's example was also irrelevant, because I specifically wrote about instances where the speech being punished occurred outside of the work environment.

Then this, from you: "BrianBaker wrote: We're approaching a very scary point in this country where certain political views are now considered verboten, and those who believe in them can be safely subjected to witch hunts that can destroy their lives, even when those beliefs are never even acted upon.

"Indy: I don’t see this issue since conservatives for the most part ‘dominate’ talk radio . . . and have a foundational presence on Fox to express their viewpoints 24/7 on television."

Which has exactly WHAT to do with what I wrote? That's a complete non sequitur; your knee-jerk talking point and gratuitous anti-conservative bullet point that's completely irrelevant to what I wrote, and the topic in general.


stevehw: Posted: May 14, 2014 4:53 p.m.

"I'm not talking about THEORY, I'm talking about real life. "

So show us some cases where someone brought suit under federal law for workplace discrimination based on political affiliation.

You're not talking real life, you're talking hypotheticals, unless you can show us some real examples.


BrianBaker: Posted: May 14, 2014 4:57 p.m.

Oh, stop. You're embarrassing yourself.

The point being that NO ONE even dares ASK about such things, because they'd be slammed into court.


BrianBaker: Posted: May 14, 2014 5:01 p.m.

BTW, steve, why do you think I raised the issue of Eich? What was HE fired for, if not his political activities that took place outside of work? Even his own company acknowledged his excellent leadership.

Hmmmmmm.....?

Still stuck on ....... something else.


Indy: Posted: May 14, 2014 7:07 p.m.

BrianBaker wrote: "Indy: I don’t see this issue since conservatives for the most part ‘dominate’ talk radio . . . and have a foundational presence on Fox to express their viewpoints 24/7 on television."

Which has exactly WHAT to do with what I wrote? That's a complete non sequitur; your knee-jerk talking point and gratuitous anti-conservative bullet point that's completely irrelevant to what I wrote, and the topic in general.

Indy: Again, conservatives have all the ‘public square’ they want to spread their ideology . . . and ‘free speech’.

So you’re free to blabber on and on and on . . . that’ the point . . . there is no ‘verboten’ to conservative speech in America.

Now if the public is getting tired over the same conservative nonsense, that’s another matter . . . but again, you’re free to blabber on . . .


therightstuff: Posted: May 14, 2014 7:26 p.m.

Speaking of freedom of speech, anyone else notice the astounding double-standard of the treatment of Michael Sam as a gay NFL player vs Tim Tebow as a Christian NFL player?

Tebow was grilled mercilessly for his faith without any consequences. Players, the media, and fans scourged his character repeatedly and the crazy PC crowd said nothing. When a player from the Miami Dolphins expressed his feelings in a tweet about Michael Sam, he was ordered to indoctrination camp.

The one-way tolerance of the liberal left strikes again.


therightstuff: Posted: May 14, 2014 7:54 p.m.

Indy: """So you’re free to blabber on and on and on . . ."""

At last...we found an example where Indy actually practices what he preaches.


stevehw: Posted: May 14, 2014 8:54 p.m.

"BTW, steve, why do you think I raised the issue of Eich? What was HE fired for, if not his political activities that took place outside of work? Even his own company acknowledged his excellent leadership."

A perfect case for your hypothetical lawsuit, isn't it? And yet...no lawsuit. Aw, poor guy.


BrianBaker: Posted: May 15, 2014 9:20 p.m.

Gaaawd.... Hilarious stuff!

First at bat: Indy!

"Indy: Again, conservatives have all the ‘public square’ they want to spread their ideology . . . and ‘free speech’.

"So you’re free to blabber on and on and on . . . that’ the point . . . there is no ‘verboten’ to conservative speech in America."

YET!

That being exactly my point. Which clearly flew right over your head. As usual.

Next up: steve!

"'BTW, steve, why do you think I raised the issue of Eich? What was HE fired for, if not his political activities that took place outside of work? Even his own company acknowledged his excellent leadership.'

"A perfect case for your hypothetical lawsuit, isn't it? And yet...no lawsuit. Aw, poor guy."

YET. But what happens when the shoe is on the other foot? Need I remind you of the Hobby Lobby case? Supreme Court? Ever heard of either of them?

YOU, TOO, clearly miss the point here.



Again, two classic examples of how, in order to subscribe to America's leftism, it's absolutely mandatory that one abandon all their abilities to reason or carry out logical thought processes, and simply resort to a recitation of Indy's fabled "talking points".

Just absolutely silly stuff.



tech: Posted: May 15, 2014 9:21 p.m.

With the parachute in his contract, I doubt if Eich is poor.

However, it is an example of intolerance for private behavior. Except the donation was published and list scoured by agents of the Tolerance Inquisition. --edited.


BrianBaker: Posted: May 15, 2014 9:37 p.m.

Exactly, tech.

THAT is my point. The leftist Thought Police -- the new American Gestapo -- is on the loose.


stevehw: Posted: May 15, 2014 9:42 p.m.

What does the Hobby Lobby case have to do with anything here?

I take it from your lack of actual facts that lawsuits for discriminatory business acts based on political affiliation are non-existent.

Probably because 47 states have no laws prohibiting such actions, nor does the federal government.


stevehw: Posted: May 15, 2014 9:43 p.m.

"The leftist Thought Police -- the new American Gestapo -- is on the loose."

I call Godwin's Law!

"American Gestapo"? LOL!


stevehw: Posted: May 15, 2014 9:47 p.m.

'Again, two classic examples of how, in order to subscribe to America's leftism, it's absolutely mandatory that one abandon all their abilities to reason or carry out logical thought processes, and simply resort to a recitation of Indy's fabled "talking points". '

Let's see...there's no federal law against a business discriminating in hiring based on political affiliation. That's a *fact*. Nearly all states *also* have no such laws. Another *fact*. You've provided no evidence of anyone filing a lawsuit (let alone winning in court) for discrimination based on political affiliation. Another *fact*. And if someone were to file such a case (in a state with no legal prohibition against it), they wouldn't have a case. Also a *fact*.

Who is it that is abandoning reason and logical thought processes here? I'll submit it's the person ignoring the *facts* and labeling his opponents Nazis. LOL!


BrianBaker: Posted: May 15, 2014 10:06 p.m.

"What does the Hobby Lobby case have to do with anything here?"

Again putting your utter hypocrisy -- or ignorance -- on full display.

Did you not ask for an example of a company facing government sanctions for their political beliefs? Yes you did.

Is Hobby Lobby not in the midst of a very high profile legal battle with the government based on their beliefs? Yes they are.


"I call Godwin's Law!

"'American Gestapo'? LOL!"

I couldn't care less what you call it, or what you think. You probably know that buy now. In fact, IMO, lefties don't even actually ever "think".

I'm reminded of the German Jews in the early '30s, when discussing the ongoing pogroms in the USSR at the time. They constantly reassured themselves that "it can't happen here".

Didn't turn out so well for them.

"Let's see...there's no federal law against a business discriminating in hiring based on political affiliation. That's a *fact*. Nearly all states *also* have no such laws. Another *fact*. You've provided no evidence of anyone filing a lawsuit (let alone winning in court) for discrimination based on political affiliation. Another *fact*. And if someone were to file such a case (in a state with no legal prohibition against it), they wouldn't have a case. Also a *fact*."

And WHAT did I say, steve, right at the start?

It may not be a fact NOW.......... "And therein lies the root of tyranny."

Just ask Brendan Eich. Funny how you can't seem to ever directly address THAT one FACT. Can you?

Still stuck on ....... something else.

This conversation with you is over. You're as bad as Indy, though thankfully not as verbose.


stevehw: Posted: May 15, 2014 10:10 p.m.

The Hobby Lobby case is about a *corporation* trying to avoid obeying the law because of *religion*. They want to have their cake and eat it, too. It's a complete false equivalency.

As always, your grasp of the law is tenuous.

I love the way you play "I'm taking my ball and going home!" when the debate doesn't go your way, though. Very mature.


stevehw: Posted: May 15, 2014 10:14 p.m.

"Did you not ask for an example of a company facing government sanctions for their political beliefs? Yes you did."

Actually, I think I asked for a lawsuit by a *person* who claimed employment discrimination based on political affiliation.

I also asked you what federal law prohibited discrimination in employment based on political affiliation, and you brushed it off as "irrelevant" instead of simply answering the question.


BrianBaker: Posted: May 15, 2014 10:34 p.m.

"The Hobby Lobby case is about a *corporation* trying to avoid obeying the law because of *religion*."

Irrelevant nonsense.

It's an entity being persecuted for their non-lefty beliefs. Period. End of story.

Proves ALL my points. Don't bother trying to twist yourself around anymore, steve. You've already got your pretzel imitation down pat.

Now I really AM done with this silly "discussion".


stevehw: Posted: May 15, 2014 10:58 p.m.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/chatterbox/2004/09/bumper_sticker_insubordination.html


stevehw: Posted: May 15, 2014 11:01 p.m.

Persecuted? Seriously? Because they're being "forced" to obey the same laws as every other business?

Talk about a victim mentality...


BrianBaker: Posted: May 15, 2014 6:28 a.m.

Well, you had all night to think about it; to come up with something; and couldn't do it. No surprise.

BRENDAN EICH!


Buh-bye, stevie.


Indy: Posted: May 15, 2014 12:19 p.m.

Therightstuff wrote: Speaking of freedom of speech, anyone else notice the astounding double-standard of the treatment of Michael Sam as a gay NFL player vs Tim Tebow as a Christian NFL player? Tebow was grilled mercilessly for his faith without any consequences. Players, the media, and fans scourged his character repeatedly and the crazy PC crowd said nothing.

Indy: Grilled by who?

Tebow went out of his way to promote this Christian beliefs in his football activities and was given enormous coverage by the media in doing so . . .

Therightstuff wrote: When a player from the Miami Dolphins expressed his feelings in a tweet about Michael Sam, he was ordered to indoctrination camp.

Indy: What player?


Indy: Posted: May 15, 2014 12:22 p.m.

Therightstuff wrote: Indy: """So you’re free to blabber on and on and on . . ."""

At last...we found an example where Indy actually practices what he preaches.

Indy: It makes your really wonder why the ‘dual standard’ of this poster isn’t more obvious to other posters . . . as if his conservative brethren here including this poster ‘talk down’ to anybody not a conservative . . .

Here again, the hypocrisy of this poster goes on in full display . . .

As the free speech issue here under discussion notes, if you're willing to 'dish it out' . . . don't be shocked when it comes back in the same manner . . .


Indy: Posted: May 15, 2014 12:31 p.m.

BrianBaker wrote: Gaaawd.... Hilarious stuff!
First at bat: Indy!

"Indy: Again, conservatives have all the ‘public square’ they want to spread their ideology . . . and ‘free speech’.

"So you’re free to blabber on and on and on . . . that’ the point . . . there is no ‘verboten’ to conservative speech in America."

YET! That being exactly my point. Which clearly flew right over your head. As usual.

Indy: As the poster demonstrates, he ‘all about free speech’ unless it’s ‘directed at him’.

The whining and crying from conservatives about their ‘inability’ to express themselves in the ‘public square’ (think this paper’s internet forum) is what ‘flew right over’ this poster’s head.

And when the ‘free speech’ doesn’t map to the many of the failed conservative ideology positions of this posters, he retorts (freely and in this forum . . .):” order to subscribe to America's leftism, it's absolutely mandatory that one abandon all their abilities to reason or carry out logical thought processes”. LOL . . .

But you see the handicap that ideologues have in forums like this since they don’t understand the consequences of their ideology nor how their ideology is creating same.

That’s why I’m here to help them . . . but more importantly, help the millions of Americans that are suffering from conservative ideology positions from denying food stamps to the poor, to raising people out of poverty by increasing the minimum wage indexed to inflation, or even addressing the millions of Americans left ‘jobless’ from the financial malfeasance of the likes of Chase, Goldman Sachs, and a few others that are now bankrupt and out of business by denying them extended unemployment benefits.

If you want to live in a nation where ‘you’re on your own’, follow this poster and his like mind libertarian market fundamentalist that simply can’t or refuse to address the shortcoming of capitalism.

Sadly, these types of reality outcomes of conservative ideology, using the poster’s terminology, is ‘right over this head’!


17trillion: Posted: May 15, 2014 12:33 p.m.

Indy: Grilled by who?

Indy: What player?


Internet Indy! I know the answers of course, but I don't feel like telling you.


Indy: Posted: May 15, 2014 12:36 p.m.

BrianBaker wrote: "What does the Hobby Lobby case have to do with anything here?"

Again putting your utter hypocrisy -- or ignorance -- on full display.

Did you not ask for an example of a company facing government sanctions for their political beliefs? Yes you did.

Is Hobby Lobby not in the midst of a very high profile legal battle with the government based on their beliefs? Yes they are.

Indy: Yes, the owners of ‘Hobby Lobby’ want to defeat our nation’s labor laws and ‘demand’ that their employees follow the owner’s ‘personal and private’ religious beliefs.

And notice that the poster can’t grasp the reality that our laws as enforced by government are created for the benefit of the general public.

Does the poster want to rescind our nation’s ‘child labor’ laws since a company owner doesn’t ‘mind’ this in their ‘personal beliefs’?

If you want to conduct business in the US, you have to follow some very basic laws that effect discrimination or protections for employees (see the disclosure that all employers are required to display at their place of business for employees).

If you don’t want to do that, why are you in business?


Indy: Posted: May 15, 2014 12:45 p.m.

BrianBaker wrote: "'BTW, steve, why do you think I raised the issue of Eich? What was HE fired for, if not his political activities that took place outside of work? Even his own company acknowledged his excellent leadership.'

Indy: Yes, Eich donated money to fight gay marriage . . . and the ‘company’ that sells product into their ‘target markets’ didn’t want somebody like that putting forth their company’s image.

A lot of companies including one’s I’ve worked for are very clear that you don’t ‘speak out’ to many topical political issues by the inference that you are speaking for that company.

I don’t know the specifics of this one case and the company in question, Mozilla.

But be sure if you’re working today, to check to see if your company has any policies about your political activities and restrictions to same.

And sadly, human nature being what it is, if you’re outspoken at work, if your supervisors or managers don’t like your ‘speech’, you’re not going anywhere in that company . . . and it’s very hard to prove this type of discrimination.

And let’s not forget our own local Frank Ferry when he wrote a letter to an opponent’s employer!

None of it should matter but it’s better to address the reality than simply find yourself unemployed and trying to ‘prove’ the case.


BrianBaker: Posted: May 15, 2014 1:07 p.m.

Tsk tsk tsk, Indy

Wrong again, as usual.

Eich made a private and confidential donation. There was nothing "public" about it.

It was only because the radical dictatorial gay activists forced the breaching of donation confidentiality that Eich's PRIVATE action ever became public at all.

Which merely goes to PROVE my own point: that those who would tyrannize others because of their opinions are out in force with the intent to stifle all opinions contrary to their own, and will do anything to destroy those opponents.

Because make no mistake, the very fact that Eich can be fired for this is an act of wanton and tyrannical destruction.

As I wrote in the very first comment on this thread, there are two types of tyranny: the "hard" one of government action, and the "soft" one of non-governmental action, such as unjustifiable employer sanctions.

But then, I know that means nothing to you and your ilk, because you're collectivists, and care nothing about individual liberty or freedom.

As far as I've seen on this site, you guys never have, and never will. Res ipsa loquitur.


therightstuff: Posted: May 15, 2014 4:41 p.m.

Indy: """I don’t know the specifics of this one case and the company in question, Mozilla."""

We've noticed that your ignorance of the facts on the issues never stops you from passing judgement.


BrianBaker: Posted: May 15, 2014 4:53 p.m.

And, of course, WAY too lazy to do any actual research.

Gotta say, not even knowing what Mozilla is?

LOL


ricketzz: Posted: May 16, 2014 6:51 a.m.

Brandon Eich was one of the original Netscape guys, no. He's probably set for life financially. If he wanted to play with the general public he should have kept away from voting on someone's civil rights (the most Unamerican idea ever).


stevehw: Posted: May 16, 2014 9:11 a.m.

He also wasn't fired. He resigned.

As a thought experiment, what if he had given a donation to the KKK?


BrianBaker: Posted: May 16, 2014 10:11 a.m.

Ricketzz, Mozilla runs Firefox.

"If he wanted to play with the general public he should have kept away from voting on someone's civil rights (the most Unamerican idea ever)."

Wow. And there you have it. The EXACT problem personified. People are now supposed to give up their rights to speak freely in order to pacify political extremists, or have their lives destroyed.

Welcome to Soviet America.

Steve, he was "forced" to resign. Try dealing with actual facts for a change.

I'd think the exact same thing if he'd donated to the KKK, or the American Nazi Party, or Planned Parenthood, or even the Democrat Party. What does it matter who it is, when it's "PRIVATE"? You need to give up your death grip on the irrelevant.


BrianBaker: Posted: May 16, 2014 10:18 a.m.

Thought of an example for ya, stevie.

I think every time Sean Penn opens his mouth, he's a complete buffoon. Not only an inarticulate dolt, but about as far to the left as one can get without actually falling off the edge off the map. I LOATHE his politics.

I also happen to think he's a pretty interesting ACTOR, so I watch most of his movies, and generally enjoy them.

What do his brain-dead politics have to do with his JOB?

Nothing, as far as I'm concerned.


stevehw: Posted: May 16, 2014 11:21 a.m.

'I'd think the exact same thing if he'd donated to the KKK, or the American Nazi Party, or Planned Parenthood, or even the Democrat Party. What does it matter who it is, when it's "PRIVATE"? '

Perhaps if you were black or jewish, and worked for him only to find out he supported the KKK or the Nazi party, you might feel differently? And of course, the public is free to vote with their wallet by not buying stuff from that company as long as the person is in charge of it. That's freedom of speech, as well. And the owners are free to decide that someone's personal beliefs are negatively impacting employee morale and the bottom line, and ask them to resign (or even fire them in many cases). Freedom in another form.

You needn't worry about someone donating to the "Democrat" party, though...no such thing. :)


BrianBaker: Posted: May 16, 2014 11:42 a.m.

"Perhaps if you were black or jewish, and worked for him only to find out he supported the KKK or the Nazi party, you might feel differently?"

Did you miss the part where I wrote that my Armenian grandfather survived the Armenian Genocide and I don't hate Turks?

Still having reading problems?

"And of course, the public is free to vote with their wallet by not buying stuff from that company as long as the person is in charge of it. That's freedom of speech, as well. And the owners are free to decide that someone's personal beliefs are negatively impacting employee morale and the bottom line, and ask them to resign (or even fire them in many cases). Freedom in another form."

All true, which doesn't make it any the less of a "soft tyranny".

But stevie, YOU'RE the one trying to equate a guy's contribution to the Prop 8 campaign with the KKK and Nazis, which is a ridiculous and repugnant assertion, frankly, as well as being hypocritically sanctimonious.

That's one of the big problems with so many of you guys on the Left: you have no sense of proportion or rationality. Anyone who disagrees with you is "eeeeevil" and beneath contempt.

Which, BTW, is EXACTLY why I loathe and despise your side's ideology and tactics so much. I remember when the Democrat Party was worthy of respect and equal regard, in spite of policy differences.

Those days are LONG gone.


stevehw: Posted: May 16, 2014 3:24 p.m.

I think the Prop 8 supporters, the KKK and other organizations which believe in depriving people of their rights are just variations on a theme, different points along a continuum of hatred.

It's not your disagreement with out positions which is odious...it's your attempt (successful, until recently) to force everyone else to adhere to your bigoted views of the law and Constitutional rights.


BrianBaker: Posted: May 16, 2014 4:53 p.m.

"I think the Prop 8 supporters, the KKK and other organizations which believe in depriving people of their rights are just variations on a theme, different points along a continuum of hatred."

And there you are. Exactly why talking with people like you is a complete waste of time, because YOU are the tyrants who act like dictators, a complete antithesis to how a successful democracy can function. You're so full of self-righteous sanctimony that you're completely blinded to your own hypocrisy.

Your country would be the American Soviet, and just like I wrote before, I want absolutely nothing to do with it.

There's only one of the two of us standing at the bad end of a "continuum of hatred", bud, and it ain't me.


stevehw: Posted: May 16, 2014 5:46 p.m.

Where, exactly, did I ever call for any government action to proscribe hate speech from the likes of the KKK, the Nazis, or the Prop 8 supporters?

See, here's how right-wingers think...they'll yell "the free market! the free market is the ultimate answer to everything!". Until the free market (of customers, of owners, of employees) exercises its will against hate-mongering. Then it's "tyranny!".

They can't even keep their own biases straight. No wonder they're losing ground fast.


BrianBaker: Posted: May 16, 2014 6:43 p.m.

"Where, exactly, did I ever call for any government action to proscribe hate speech from the likes of the KKK, the Nazis, or the Prop 8 supporters?"

Why do you keep forgetting what I said about "soft tyranny"?

Oh, yeah. I forgot. Either reading/comprehension difficulties, or a VERY selective short-term memory issue.

And why do you even equate Prop 8 supporte4rs with Nazis and the KKK? (BTW, isn't that some violation of that "rule" you quoted? More hypocrisy from you. Quel surprise, I'm sure...).

But I think I'll paste in my comment here from the other thread for any of those fabled phantom "Guest Readers" Indy thinks actually exist:

"The Left, as perfectly represented by you, the self-professed protectors of "diversity and tolerance", are absolutely INtolerant of ANY diversity of opinion if it strays from the dogma of your doctrine. Anyone who's off the socialist/collectivist plantation must be hunted down by Simon Legree and lashed soundly. Got it."

Yep. That about sums it up as much as is humanly possible.


Welcome to Soviet Amerika, stevie-style.


therightstuff: Posted: May 17, 2014 9:00 p.m.

"""I think the Prop 8 supporters, the KKK and other organizations which believe in depriving people of their rights are just variations on a theme, different points along a continuum of hatred."""

So now it's the hatred canard?

Steve, you'll love this. I'm actually buying a house...from two gay guys. I know this will ruin your stereotype of me as a Prop 8, hate-filled, homophobic but we've actually become good friends in the process. In the negotiations I requested a friend of mine to handle the escrow. Their realtor made a very strange request for the payout of the proceeds which my friend told her would be illegal. Their realtor said to my friend..."You're just discriminating against my clients because they're gay!"

Where does the madness end?


therightstuff: Posted: May 17, 2014 9:04 p.m.

Steve, a pregnant woman in Sudan is to be flogged and hung for marrying a Christian man. To follow your logic, you are no different than her non-Christian accusers.

Good for the gander?


stevehw: Posted: May 17, 2014 9:07 p.m.

I'm not going to defend a comment by some realtor about some situation about which I know nothing. And perhaps she learned a lesson...that not everybody is running around trying to discriminate against gays. Good.

It'd be nice if we got to a point where it didn't *matter* if the couple were straight or gay, and nobody paid any attention to it.

I'm sorry you disagree with my view of Prop 8/anti-SSM groups or persons. However, I cannot understand how actively working to prevent other people from marrying someone they love is in any way *not* grounded in, if not outright hatred, misunderstanding and animosity.


stevehw: Posted: May 17, 2014 9:09 p.m.

Re: the woman in Sudan...

HUH? WTF are you talking about? How am I in any way like her accusers?


BrianBaker: Posted: May 17, 2014 10:50 p.m.

"I'm sorry you disagree with my view of Prop 8/anti-SSM groups or persons. However, I cannot understand how actively working to prevent other people from marrying someone they love is in any way *not* grounded in, if not outright hatred, misunderstanding and animosity."

Because you're a shallow thinker, if a thinker at all, who doesn't understand how people can have principles grounded in anything other than pure emotionalism. Simple.


"Re: the woman in Sudan...HUH? WTF are you talking about? How am I in any way like her accusers?"


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Thus spake a member of America's Taliban, the Thought Police. Imam Carnak.


stevehw: Posted: May 17, 2014 11:06 p.m.

Nothing but personal attacks, as always.


therightstuff: Posted: May 17, 2014 8:42 a.m.

HUH? WTF are you talking about? How am I in any way like her accusers?

How easy it is for you to lump all Prop 8 supporters in with the evil, murderous Nazis, the KKK or any other hate group but if we were to lump your total disdain for what you call Christianists in with other groups that hate Christianity, then its....WTF???

It's always so entertaining to see the reaction of the far-left when you apply their same logic on them.


therightstuff: Posted: May 17, 2014 9:50 a.m.

"""I'm not going to defend a comment by some realtor about some situation about which I know nothing."""

And yet, where did she get such irresponsible prejudice? From people who promote the twisted ideology that if you voted for Prop 8, it's because deep inside you really hate people who practice homosexuality. Gee...where have we been hearing that lately, Steve?


ricketzz: Posted: May 18, 2014 7:23 a.m.

If you want to bring out the brain police talk about "common good" and "collective action". Talk about a Jubilee to reset all old debts to zero (like the Bible says). Talk about Collateral Murder and Old Testament bible verses being engraved on our weapons. Talk about how "consumerism" must die if we are to live. See if that doesn't bring out the reactionaries (who respond to such trigger phrases). Tell them hundreds of millions of acres of empty federal land has value just sitting there, unmolested. Tell them everything Western man has touched has turned to excrement.


BrianBaker: Posted: May 18, 2014 7:32 a.m.

Utter rubbish; collectivist babble.

"Tell them everything Western man has touched has turned to excrement."

"Eastern man" has somehow done better? What is that even supposed to mean?

"Talk about how 'consumerism' must die if we are to live."

I think that thought would have more moral force if you wrote it while living in a cave somewhere. But if you're sitting in your house or apartment, where you eat food you bought in a store, writing it on your own personal computer, and get around in your own car, then that just sounds to me like hypocritical drivel.

Why don't you lead by example?


Indy: Posted: May 18, 2014 3:42 p.m.

BrianBaker wrote: Tsk tsk tsk, Indy

Indy: Yes, and a ‘tsk tsk tsk’ here and ‘tsk tsk tsk’ there, . . we all know the song from conservatives now don’t we . . .

BrianBaker wrote: Wrong again, as usual.

Indy: Did that teach this technique in ‘conservatism 101’ where you ‘pat yourself on the back’! Priceless . . .

BrianBaker wrote: Eich made a private and confidential donation. There was nothing "public" about it.

Indy: Yeah, I guess in much the same manner that Mormons in Utak like Romney that contributed millions of dollars to defeat ‘gay marriage’ in here in CA. Who nice of them to impose their ‘private and persona’ religious beliefs on us . . . using money and stealth!

BrianBaker wrote: It was only because the radical dictatorial gay activists forced the breaching of donation confidentiality that Eich's PRIVATE action ever became public at all.

Indy: Yes, gay Americans did what the Founding Fathers did when they found themselves being persecuted . . . and I guess, these folks were ‘radical’ in ideas to the British.

BrianBaker wrote: Which merely goes to PROVE my own point: that those who would tyrannize others because of their opinions are out in force with the intent to stifle all opinions contrary to their own, and will do anything to destroy those opponents.

Indy: Wow . . . speaking up for your ‘liberty’ is considered as ‘terrorism’ by a conservative . . . something to think about . .

BrianBaker wrote: Because make no mistake, the very fact that Eich can be fired for this is an act of wanton and tyrannical destruction.

Indy: Hey, if you’d ‘bother to read’ my posts you note many companies ‘prohibit’ their employees from being outspoken politically not wanting to have the ‘media’ infer the comments from an employee speak for the company . . . and you can be ‘let go’ for that.

BrianBaker wrote: As I wrote in the very first comment on this thread, there are two types of tyranny: the "hard" one of government action, and the "soft" one of non-governmental action, such as unjustifiable employer sanctions.

Indy: Yes, it’s one reason why we have ‘lablor’ laws and other regulations that prohibit say the religious conservatives that own ‘Hobby Lobby’ from forcing their religious beliefs down the throats of their employees . . .


Indy: Posted: May 18, 2014 3:44 p.m.

BrianBaker wrote: But then, I know that means nothing to you and your ilk, because you're collectivists, and care nothing about individual liberty or freedom.

Indy: With a ‘ilk, ilk’ here and a ‘ilk ilk’ there . . . you know you’re speaking a conservative who returns to ‘character assassination’ when you can’t defend your ideology! “Tsk, tsk”!

BrianBaker wrote: As far as I've seen on this site, you guys never have, and never will. Res ipsa loquitur.

Indy: Again, the real benefit of this site is to explore the failures of conservatism and why so much of it is hurting Americans . . . especially those with lots of money as we saw with the wealthy Mormons ‘out of the generosity’ of their hearts spend millions of dollars to restrict the ‘liberty’ of gay Americans in CA . . . who knew . . .


BrianBaker: Posted: May 18, 2014 3:48 p.m.

Indy, endlessly repeating the same old, tired clichés isn't going to make them any less vapid than they were the first dozen times around. And your incomparable windbaggery makes your blather impossible for anyone to even want to attempt to wade through.

Anyway, I'll be brief: I countered every one of your so-called "points" already, and unlike you, I hate repeating myself.
.
.
. --edited.


tech: Posted: May 18, 2014 5:56 p.m.

Indy: "Yes, it’s one reason why we have ‘lablor’ laws and other regulations that prohibit say the religious conservatives that own ‘Hobby Lobby’ from forcing their religious beliefs down the throats of their employees . . . "

A disingenuous misrepresentation of the Constitutional issues upon which the SCOTUS issued a unamious stay ruling pending review.

http://www.becketfund.org/hobbylobby/


Indy: Posted: May 18, 2014 7:13 p.m.

BrianBaker wrote: Indy, endlessly repeating the same old, tired clichés isn't going to make them any less vapid than they were the first dozen times around. And your incomparable windbaggery makes your blather impossible for anyone to even want to attempt to wade through.

Indy: Thus you say nothing . . . that’s chapter 3 in the ‘conservative 101’ reference text!

BrianBaker wrote: Anyway, I'll be brief:

Indy: There is a God!

BrianBaker wrote: I countered every one of your so-called "points" already, and unlike you, I hate repeating myself.

Indy: This is chapter 4 about telling your opposition that you are ‘right’ and they are ‘wrong’.

Again, you must have passed this course with flying colors . . . well done!


Indy: Posted: May 18, 2014 7:18 p.m.

Tech wrote: Indy: "Yes, it’s one reason why we have ‘lablor’ laws and other regulations that prohibit say the religious conservatives that own ‘Hobby Lobby’ from forcing their religious beliefs down the throats of their employees . . . "

A disingenuous misrepresentation of the Constitutional issues upon which the SCOTUS issued a unanimous stay ruling pending review.

Indy: Indeed, the work over the last 20+ years by conservative to pack the SCOTUS with a ‘theocrat’ majority is threatening the integrity of the Constitution including the ‘separation of church and state’.

The so called ‘Robert’s Court’ is threatening Justice Roberts with a legacy that will be embarrassing for him for decades if not eternity . . . I wouldn’t want to be in his ‘shoes’ . . .

Tech wrote: http://www.becketfund.org/hobbylobby/

Indy: Yes, I see this religious conservative ‘front’ for insertion of more religion in government failing into the same dilemma that you appear to want to join Roberts in . . . be careful what you ask for . . .


Indy: Posted: May 18, 2014 7:23 p.m.

Therightstuff wrote: Indy: """I don’t know the specifics of this one case and the company in question, Mozilla."""

We've noticed that your ignorance of the facts on the issues never stops you from passing judgement.

Indy: No, I’m thankful conservatives believe that ‘one case’ is going to make the argument . . .

But indeed, I don’t watch conservative media …

The reality is as I noted. Please reread till you get it . . . you’ll feel better and stop embarrassing yourself with right wing talking points that are ‘focus group tested’.


Indy: Posted: May 18, 2014 7:27 p.m.

BrianBaker wrote: And, of course, WAY too lazy to do any actual research.

Gotta say, not even knowing what Mozilla is? LOL

Indy: Yes, I did check the account of this guy . . . and he’s sadly effected what many other people like experienced working for ‘corporate America’ that prefers its employees to keep their mouths ‘SHUT’!

This is pretty much the same type of issue when the Mormon Church got its members to contribute to the ‘anti-gay marriage’ bill in CA . . .


BrianBaker: Posted: May 18, 2014 8:24 p.m.

Indy: "BrianBaker wrote: Anyway, I'll be brief:... Indy: There is a God!"


Said without the slightest hint of irony or self-awareness. Completely hilarious!

Then this:

"BrianBaker wrote: And, of course, WAY too lazy to do any actual research... Gotta say, not even knowing what Mozilla is? LOL

"Indy: Yes, I did check the account of this guy . . ."


What???????

You had to "check the account"?????

Aren't you the self-proclaimed business expert with the MBA and all those other alleged credentials, who used to "teach business", and you didn't know who MOZILLA was????

You kidding me?

On top of all that, it's been huge news for weeks....... and you're oblivious??

Actually, I guess I shouldn't have put any question marks there, because your oblivion has been more than evident since ... like ... forever.

Jeez, dude, you're a hoot.


BrianBaker: Posted: May 18, 2014 8:35 p.m.

PS

I guess we can add Mozilla to the long and growing list of things you know nothing about but manage to have opinions on, like the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the Federalist Papers, Original Intent, the amount of known oil deposits, etc.

Whatever college you supposedly went to, you should consider suing them for a refund. I think "malpractice" would work for ya.


therightstuff: Posted: May 19, 2014 9:00 p.m.

Indy: """But indeed, I don’t watch conservative media"""

It's obvious you're a disciple of MSNBC which is where you get your impression of Fox News. Fox reports the news while MSNBC reports on Fox. It's part of their inferiority complex. Last I looked, the ratings were pretty humiliating for MSNBC. They are preaching their hate to a very tiny choir.


ricketzz: Posted: May 19, 2014 7:40 a.m.

Mozilla is a not for profit organization, not a corporation. Brendan Eich is one of the original Netscape guys. He is fabulously wealthy. Don't weep for him, ye who wear umbrage like a hipster beanie.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandon_Eich#Netscape_and_JavaScript


BrianBaker: Posted: May 19, 2014 8:44 a.m.

So, are you saying that just because a guy's rich, he doesn't deserve the same rights and privileges as anybody else?


Incidentally, you need to do better research: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozilla_Corporation

The Mozilla CORPORATION was what Eich was CEO of. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brendan_Eich)

"On March 24, 2014, Eich was promoted to CEO of Mozilla Corporation.[11] His appointment sparked controversy over a $1,000 political donation Eich had made in 2008 to the campaign for California Proposition 8, which sought to establish that, "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." [12] This had been noted publicly two years prior, in March 2012, and provoked some criticism at the time in social media, particularly Twitter.[12] After his appointment to CEO, the controversy reemerged. In the ensuing public debate, some LGBT activists called for a boycott of the company.[13] A number of Mozilla employees asked him to step down, while others spoke out on their blogs in his favor.[14][15] Three of Mozilla Corporation's five directors resigned following Eich's appointment,[16][17] which the Mozilla Foundation attributed to "a variety of reasons. Two of the board members had been planning to leave for some time, one since January and one explicitly at the end of the CEO search, regardless of the person selected."[18] On April 3, 2014, Eich stepped down as CEO and resigned from working at Mozilla."




ricketzz: Posted: May 20, 2014 7:52 a.m.

"The Mozilla Corporation is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Mozilla Foundation that coordinates and integrates the development of Internet-related applications such as the Firefox and SeaMonkey web browsers" -wikipedia


tech: Posted: May 20, 2014 1:36 p.m.

I too question your assertions and research skills, ricketzz. Brian is correct and you erred.

"The Mozilla Corporation was established in August 2005 as a wholly owned taxable subsidiary that serves the non-profit, public benefit goals of its parent, the Mozilla Foundation, and the vast Mozilla community."

https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/foundation/moco/

Audited financials: https://static.mozilla.com/moco/en-US/pdf/Mozilla_Audited_Financials_2012.pdf


ricketzz: Posted: May 21, 2014 1:04 p.m.

This is totally off point nitpicking and typical of right wing anarchists. The point is that Mr. Eich and his foundation and the chairmanship are all that's left of an interesting pioneer venture. Navigator was the one everyone copied. Now that AOL owns that, we have Firefox and Seamonkey.

As you well know "freedom of speech" only applies in civic activities. Personally, I knew nothing about any of this until I heard about it on the radio. None of the "activist" groups I frequent were bothered by his donation. Small change. Distraction.

If you are so good at sussing out corporate intricacies perhaps you should offer to help Howard P audit the DoD...


Indy: Posted: May 21, 2014 1:14 p.m.

BrianBaker wrote: "BrianBaker wrote: And, of course, WAY too lazy to do any actual research... Gotta say, not even knowing what Mozilla is? LOL

"Indy: Yes, I did check the account of this guy . . ."
What??????? You had to "check the account"????? Aren't you the self-proclaimed business expert with the MBA and all those other alleged credentials, who used to "teach business", and you didn't know who MOZILLA was???? You kidding me?

Indy: I do get a kick out of how conservatives like to ‘twist and distort’ things as you’re doing here . . . but well done from a conservative point of view!

Indy: On top of all that, it's been huge news for weeks....... and you're oblivious?? Actually, I guess I shouldn't have put any question marks there, because your oblivion has been more than evident since ... like ... forever.

Indy: I don’t watch conservative media like Fox . . . but I do check the internet and see why the person in question here, Eich, is being used as the ‘poster boy’ for a conservative position.

BrianBaker wrote: Jeez, dude, you're a hoot.

Indy: Hooters are what hooters is . . .


Indy: Posted: May 21, 2014 1:17 p.m.

BrianBaker wrote: PS

Indy: Are you sure that you didn’t want to hit the B key first?

BrianBaker wrote: I guess we can add Mozilla to the long and growing list of things you know nothing about but manage to have opinions on, like the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the Federalist Papers, Original Intent, the amount of known oil deposits, etc.

Indy: Yes, I don’t know about and am still puzzled why so many conservatives are confused on the issues you noted in the list to me . . . one reason I come here to help you out on such topics.

BrianBaker wrote: Indy:Whatever college you supposedly went to, you should consider suing them for a refund. I think "malpractice" would work for ya.

Indy: LOL . . . but I do find the mocking of those with education to be consistent with conservative thought . . . or lack there of . . .


tech: Posted: May 22, 2014 10:26 p.m.

Indy: LOL . . . but I do find the mocking of those with education to be consistent with conservative thought . . . or lack there of . . .

You err again here, Indy. It's your ideology driven posts that are being mocked, not education. Specifically, it's the lack of application of the MBA you profess to hold. We find the cognitive disconnects and lack of intellectual rigor surprising.

Just clarifying that for you. Again.


ricketzz: Posted: May 25, 2014 7:05 a.m.

Oooh. I love it when you flex your brain muscles.


RobertBurton: Posted: May 26, 2014 8:08 p.m.

The fact of the matter is if we do not take giant steps to eliminate racism here in America, we as a country are headed to disaster! Indeed, our country simply refuses to take action whenever racism is concerned. Even the laudable forced-busing issue and the affirmative-action issue has been mad-mouthed to death by those people who want to keep racism as is. My insertion for the elimination of racism represents a last resort attempt to save our country.


tech: Posted: May 27, 2014 9:46 p.m.

Examples of your assertions are necessary to support your position, Mr. Burton.


RobertBurton: Posted: May 27, 2014 5:42 a.m.

I was married into an interracial union--my wife, Veragene, is an African American and I am white. All types of racist action were lodged against us, but here are only four of them: 1) a police-department officer screamed at me "have you seen any African Americans in the area, 2) "It's unnatural. It's unnatural," a huge white man often would scream at the front door to our apartment, 3) whose that African American I saw you with last night, said a co-worker of mine, and 4) a waitress would always spill coffee on Veragene's lap whenever we ate at a certain restaurant, and then laugh and giggle "so sorry." Those are only four examples of racism that I repeatedly had to deal with.


ricketzz: Posted: May 27, 2014 7:16 a.m.

I forced my parents to let me attend vocational school in downtown Phoenix, rather than continue at Coronado, one of the infamous Scottsdale School District "Disneyland" campuses that the anti-tax people called "extravagant". Had about 2,000 students during double sessions...anyway I went to Phoenix Union H.S. to study vocational electronics and there encountered a universe where I was the minority. For 3 semesters. Don't ever say Magnet Schools, busing, etc., don't work. They worked on me.

By the way, I never got any grief at P.U.H.S., unlike the suburban school where I was surrounded (literally at times) by my own tribe. My best friend at P.U. was an offensive linesman named Chunky Matthews.


tech: Posted: May 27, 2014 7:16 p.m.

Mr. Burton:

You referenced a systemic racial problem that will lead to "disaster". Your anecdotes are indeed unfortunate. When did they occur?

My wife is a Latina and her skin is brown. I suppose our union would be considered "interracial" for those that track such absurdities. She has endured racism but that was decades ago.


tech: Posted: May 27, 2014 7:37 p.m.

"I went to Phoenix Union H.S. to study vocational electronics and there encountered a universe where I was the minority. For 3 semesters. Don't ever say Magnet Schools, busing, etc., don't work. They worked on me." - ricketzz

My oldest son attended Westchester HS and was mugged multiple times by budding young criminal gangsters bussed in from Inglewood, Compton, etc. to escape their failing schools. Westchester failed too and was taken over by the state. Interestingly, bussing no longer occurs and the school has recovered.

He was definitely targeted by race and his AP class attendance. However, we judge by individuals rather than racial groups.

We're pleased to have escaped L.A. to protect our other sons from crime.


ricketzz: Posted: May 28, 2014 7:59 a.m.

I went to High School before Reagan. The American Dream kept us away from each others' throats. We were people back then, not individuals in a last man standing death match.


tech: Posted: May 29, 2014 10:39 p.m.

A crowbar thrown by street thugs in Venice barely missed my driver's window, striking and damaging the rain gutter of my truck. I subsequently learned this was frequently done to drivers of pallor. Lucky, eh?

Carter was campaigning for President.


CaptGene: Posted: May 29, 2014 11:44 a.m.

My father (Olive Skinned Spaniard)was attacked in Los Angeles by a group of black youths when dad came to the defense of his Olive Skinned Spanish sister that was being accosted by the same group of black youths. FDR was in charge at the time.


RobertBurton: Posted: May 29, 2014 1:43 p.m.

Maya Angelou, 1928-2014, told all of us about the black experience, especially here in America, much better than I can. The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) sites 77 hate groups in California alone, and the vast majority of those hate groups are hostile to African Americans. Your father's bad experience in Los Angeles is atypical of overall hate here in the U.S.A. Your father's experience represents "the hate that hate produced," a Nation of Islam (NOI) truism.


tech: Posted: May 29, 2014 2:44 p.m.

Regarding the comment above… res ipsa loquitur.


CaptGene: Posted: May 29, 2014 6:07 p.m.

These are the different types of hate groups in CA according to the "Hate Map" you mentioned, please indicate which groups you feel are "hostile to African Americans".

- Racist Skinhead
- White Nationalist
- Neo-Nazi
- Anti-Immigrant
- General Hate
- Anti-Muslim
- Black Separatist
- Anti-LGBT
- Racist Music
- Holocaust Denial
- Neo-Confederate
- Ku Klux Klan
- Radical Traditional Catholicism


Fun Fact: Nation of Islam accounts for 5 of the 77 "Hate Groups" on the map. --edited.


RobertBurton: Posted: May 30, 2014 11:05 p.m.

With the exception of the Jehovah's Witnesses, most religions in America are racist against all non-whites, especially in the Bible belt states here in the good U.S.A. Your above list of hate groups is truncated to a silly degree, only 13 hate groups out of the 77 in California. Furthermore, in the past, the KU Klux Klan used to be the most active hate group in our country, but they are winding down now as a result of the pressures put on them from the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC). However, American citizens need to denounce all forms of hate whenever they witness them, and speak up against racist language of all types. America is less racist than at any time in its history, but hate groups are still out there. Teach love to your children, not hate.




















CaptGene: Posted: May 30, 2014 3:21 a.m.

"Truncated"? Which groups are off the list? I doubled checked; every group that appears on the map for CA from the SPLC is on the list, just as I stated.

So, again, which of the groups listed do you consider "hostile to African Americans". It's a simple question, why are you dodging it?


RobertBurton: Posted: May 30, 2014 5:03 a.m.

Well, I believe the more active the hate groups are is more important than the volume, but, since you are holding me to task, I consider the following hate groups to be hostile to African Americans: 1) Racist Skinhead, 2)Neo-Nazi, 3) General Hate, 4Holocaust Denial, and 5) the Ku Klux Klan. However, as I say, the activity within the groups is more important than the volume, but, you are correct, because of the SPLC, the volume of groups hostile to African Americans is small, and both of us can take delight in that fact.


ricketzz: Posted: May 30, 2014 6:53 a.m.

What we keep missing here is that while we are fighting ancient battles, largely based on hunter-gatherer tribal affinities being exploited by professional anarchists, the Banksters continue to plunder, continue to buy their way out of trouble for pennies on the dollar, continue to decimate and defile our oozing decaying hulk of a dead republic. Chelsea Manning does a year naked without sleep for reminding us that we are murderers; Lloyd Blankfein makes billions laundering money, gets a bonus. As long as we argue over guns, gays, God we will not stop the pirates from their plunder.

Very shiny. Yeah.


CaptGene: Posted: May 30, 2014 9:47 a.m.

Well, I obviously agree with the your selection of "Racist Skinhead" and the "Ku Klux Klan". However, "General Hate" is problematic whose inclusion should be fractional as the portion of that group that is possibly anti black is described by SPLC as: "a polygamous “Mormon” breakaway sect that is racist", The majority of their definition focuses on hatred for Jews, Arabs and Catholics.

The definitions offered by the SPLC for "Neo-Nazi" and "Holocaust Denial" include absolutely nothing about racial animus. In fact the words "race", "color", "african", "black" and "white" appear nowhere in their definitions of these groups.

However, even if we included all the groups you selected it would be 39 out of 77. Essentially half, nowhere near the "vast majority" you originally claimed. Remove the two that are anti-Semitic and the number drops to 27, or about a third.

When your original assertion was so far off base and dripping with hyperbole, how can you expect anyone to take you seriously when you follow up with things like: "most religions in America are racist against all non-whites"?

I did your homework for you last time, hopefully you learned something, this time you're on your own.


RobertBurton: Posted: May 30, 2014 1:45 p.m.

Here is my point--let me be clear--if we have 77 hate groups in California, but only 5 of them are active, then in terms of legality we need to put the most pressure on the five, since they are doing all the racist damage in California, and I think the SPLC is doing precisely that. Hence, my comment that most of the hate groups are hostile to African Americans is a good one, because all of the active hate groups on the list hate simply because of skin color, namely African Americans. I think most African Americans would agree with me about that.


CaptGene: Posted: May 31, 2014 9:18 p.m.

"Hence, my comment that most of the hate groups are hostile to African Americans is a good one, because all of the active hate groups on the list hate simply because of skin color, namely African Americans."

You are free to believe that, but it is wholly inaccurate and none of it comports with what the SPLC says. In short, you haven't a clue what you are talking about. I suggest you do at least a little research before posting drivel like this, lest you look foolish.

As a service I will provide you with a couple of links that might help you get your facts straight. The first one is the SPLC's definition of a Neo Nazi hate group, see if you can find any reference to skin color.

http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-files/ideology/neo-nazi

The next one is the SPLC's definition of a Holocaust Denier hate group, see if you can find any reference to skin color.

http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-files/ideology/holocaust-denial

Research them or not, it's up to you. But if you are posting under your real name, it may not be wise to argue from a position of ignorance. Just sayin


RobertBurton: Posted: May 31, 2014 11:10 p.m.

This ex-pugilist is a fearless man! I do not mind you having your opinions that disagree with mine, but when you hint that my views might be painful to my health: You say, "But if you are posting under your real name, it might not be wise to argue from a position of ignorance," and I take that as a weak threat to my own self. Let me offer a bit of counsel to you: You need to learn how to debate another person, like in these comments, without name calling, or I should say innuendo.


CaptGene: Posted: May 31, 2014 12:14 a.m.

Not a threat, simply an observation followed by some kind advice; you appear the fool when you claim something that is demonstrably untrue. If you don't like the facts I've presented then dispute them, with facts. You have given your opinion which is, as I have stated, and given evidence to prove, is simply wrong and obviously ill-informed.

Obviously you either did not investigate your claims by checking the links I provided (which will only keep you in perpetual ignorance on the subject) or you did investigate, found you were way wrong in your assumptions and subsequent opinions and decided to double down instead of simply admitting you were wrong.

Either way you chose poorly. Oh, and just to be clear, there's no innuendo to it; I'm saying you're a fool for not doing your homework, Mr. ex-pugilist.

Come back when you have some facts and not just hysterical hyperbole.


RobertBurton: Posted: May 31, 2014 1:46 a.m.

I base most of my observations from having been married to an African American for twenty straight years, as well as having dated her, Veragene, for five years prior to our marriage. That is, I was heavily into the "black experience" for quite some time, and also my minor at the university was Pan African Studies. Thus, I think that I have a foundation based upon years of academic study as well as practical experience in the subject of better racial relations. I am proud of those accomplishments.


RobertBurton: Posted: May 31, 2014 6:00 a.m.

I, still, say that the way to get rid of racist actions is to limit legally racist words. That is to say, if we limit racist words, then we will limit racist thoughts, and, by limiting racist thoughts, we shall limit racist actions, which is the ultimate objection! When people are legally permitted to speak their racist words, racist thoughts remain firm in their mindset, and, hence, racist actions result. Indeed, a cause-and-effect reaction follows from words to thoughts to actions!


CaptGene: Posted: May 31, 2014 7:39 a.m.

Are you suggesting we should outlaw just racial epithets, or would the law extend to other groups (like religious) as well?


RobertBurton: Posted: May 31, 2014 9:42 a.m.

I say that all racist talk should be outlawed, and I think that there should be a stiff financial fine for those who utter such language! I am looking into my crystal ball, and I see that most people would obey the law simply because it is the law, and that would work wonders toward eliminating racist actions--ultimately. Of course, we do not have enough prisons, etc., to house all such offenders, so that is why I say a stiff financial fine would be in order. What is your opinion about having such law on the books?


CaptGene: Posted: May 31, 2014 11:16 a.m.

As long as it is applied equally, to everybody, regardless of race I'm all for it. You would apply the law equally to all races, right?


RobertBurton: Posted: May 31, 2014 11:43 a.m.

Absolutely yes! All peoples would be held accountable to that law. Also, by such an insertion, I think that hate groups--all hate groups--would ultimately stop thinking such nasty, racist, thoughts. As a result, as I say, once the thoughts stop, so would the actions, the two being inextricable conditions of each other. However, before I submit such a proposal to the U.S. Congress, I should like to know how readers of The Signal view it. I have you down for supporting it.


CaptGene: Posted: May 31, 2014 11:45 a.m.

It will put the rap industry out of business.


tech: Posted: May 31, 2014 12:15 p.m.

Mr. Burton, I find your regulatory suggestion regarding free speech Orwellian and suspect you'd don't entirely understand the implications of your proposal. Ceding to government the power to regulate free speech is an exceedingly dangerous precedent.

The response to offensive racist speech is more speech of reason that exposes its prejudice and irrationality. Sunlight rather than censorship, I say.


CaptGene: Posted: May 31, 2014 12:17 p.m.

Just to be clear, I do not favor the proposed legislation, I favor watching you trying to do it. I feel it would be incredibly entertaining.


RobertBurton: Posted: May 31, 2014 1:31 p.m.

Well, sir, I think if we do not do something to stop racism here in America, our country shall not last much longer. Indeed, racism has put our country on alert! Every time we try some proposal to get rid of racism here, lawyers get involved and the country soon becomes divided on the proposals to help ease racism in America, two examples of which are forced bussing to help bring our youth to a setting of racial harmony, as well as affirmative action for similar reasons. My proposal seeks giant steps to make our country one single race of human beings, nothing else.


tech: Posted: May 31, 2014 3:09 p.m.

Racism is a declining aspect of our society and is dying out with those who were raised with those "values", i.e. based on ignorance and fear of the "other". It isn't the pandemic you assert. Education and interaction with the diverse population in our land of immigrants have been key in these improvements.

Let's take one statistic you and I share.

The Rise of Intermarriage

http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2012/02/16/the-rise-of-intermarriage/

In U.S., 87% Approve of Black-White Marriage, vs. 4% in 1958

http://www.gallup.com/poll/163697/approve-marriage-blacks-whites.aspx


CaptGene: Posted: May 31, 2014 3:35 p.m.

Tech, please don't try and dissuade RB from his pursuit, we know he will never succeed (1st Amendment and all that) but it will be such a great thing to watch him try!


tech: Posted: May 31, 2014 4:10 p.m.

Noted, CG. I find the illogic of those positing scenarios absent any supporting fact disappointing. As you did, I point out a lack of critical thinking when the opportunity arises.

The relentless pessimism of some folks is, frankly, weird. The quality of life has never been better in human history and it's rapidly improving due to the ubiquitous availability of information, connectedness and the revolutionary technological convergence in a myriad of areas we're all witnessing.


RobertBurton: Posted: June 1, 2014 11:58 p.m.

America seems to always wait until the problem is right at their doorstep before taking action. As regards racism here in the U.S.A., we cannot afford to wait any longer. I do believe that hope comes in the form of legislation which makes it illegal to utter racist language anywhere among the American homeland! People who are not part of the problem, in most cases, represent the hope of a new beginning for our nation. As the saying goes, "if you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem." Where would our country be if everyone took the position that it is useless to try and save our nation from disaster--racist disaster? If nothing else, my proposal is part of the solution for a racist-free America. People sit back and laugh at proposals like mine, yet they are the first to claim their love for America, although they have not the nerve to try and help our nation maintain itself! Yes, they consider themselves great Americans yet without a theory to help keep America strong. They are just hypocrites.


CaptGene: Posted: June 1, 2014 7:48 a.m.

You don't need anyone here to approve or support you to move forward with your proposal. You are free to, and I encourage you to try and get it through. You could start by writing a column and sending it to local papers. You could start a signature drive to get an initiative on the ballot. Are you serious about this, or are you expecting others to do the work for you?


RobertBurton: Posted: June 1, 2014 8:33 a.m.

I shall write a proposal and send it to the White House (I write to the White House, often) and to Congress. I will be interested in hearing what they have to say. Your suggestions about writing a column to the local papers is a good one. First, of course, I shall write to The Signal! As a practice, I tend to send my letters to the editor all across America, first and foremost to the White House, and then to friends of mine, most of whom live in the Midwest! However, I am not cut out to start a signature drive; though, now that you mention it, I shall suggest in my writings that somebody start one. Thanks for your suggestions.


tech: Posted: June 1, 2014 1:47 p.m.

May you achieve the level of success your proposal deserves, Mr. Burton.


CaptGene: Posted: June 1, 2014 1:55 p.m.

You might also want to see if you can have certain books like Tom Sawyer, and certain movies like 12 Years a Slave banned, or at least have the producers pay a fine. You might want to add that in your letter to the White House.

I suspect you would be against any racist organizations as well, right? What do you propose Congress do about the Congressional Black Caucus? You know that the CBC denies membership to white congressmen, even those that serve predominately black districts, right? Should members of such groups be banned from voting, or fined for each day they are members? How would you like to see that handled?


RobertBurton: Posted: June 1, 2014 2:57 p.m.

For the immediate future, I am studying hard the Bible, for I have to qualify for baptism by answering 80 questions from that "Good Book" given to me from elders from our congregation! If I answer all 80 questions correctly, I then shall be allowed to be baptized. Thus, I shall not write my proposal until my baptism has been completed, which shall be in late July, 2014. Thus, my proposal looks like it shall happen in early August, 2014. I shall chip away at my rough drafts to my proposal a little bit everyday, that is, whenever I take a break from my Bible studies. Hence, for the next few months, I will be busy. If you have any comments for me along the way, as it were, please do not delay in sending them out to me.


RobertBurton: Posted: June 1, 2014 4:48 p.m.

A future date shall be given for everybody to comply with the new law. What people did before the new law takes affect shall not count; only what people do after the new date shall be legislated. You asked about the Congressional Black Caucus, and my answer is that, like everybody else, if they make racist comments after the law takes affect, they shall be fined! Old books, before the new date, shall not be fined. Only books published after the new date shall suffer the financial consequences. In that way, I think we can clear up the racism which now injures America, greatly.


CaptGene: Posted: June 1, 2014 5:46 p.m.

Wow, 80 questions, in front of a Board of Elders no less. I only had to answer one when I got baptized, and I didn't even have to pay for parking! I guess they decided too many people were becoming believers so they had to tighten up the qualification process. Good luck with that.

Sadly, racism will continue to run rampant while you take care of your personal matters. Small price to pay I guess.

Tech, this has to be a put-on.


RobertBurton: Posted: June 1, 2014 6:17 p.m.

I am looking for huge improvements in racial relations say twenty years down the road. That is, in the beginning, there will be rough sailing for the new law. With time, however, people shall get used to it, and I predict enjoy the new measure of racial harmony that comes from its insertion, especially from our children who do not have any history of what America was like before the new law. Think about that--our generation will die off and the generation that comes after us will be born into the new law.


CaptGene: Posted: June 1, 2014 6:22 p.m.

A New World Order, as it were.


CaptGene: Posted: June 1, 2014 6:25 p.m.

You never responded to my question about the CBC. Would your law allow racist clubs like the CBC to be Grandfathered, or fined out of existence.


RobertBurton: Posted: June 1, 2014 7:46 p.m.

I did respond to that question. Nobody would be above the law, and I think that African Americans would enjoy the new law so much that they would be the first group to highly endorse its inception. I think that it is the whites that would raise hell about the new law. I say that from the experience of having been married to an African American for ten straight years, and hence having listened intently to their views about racial harmony--here in America.


CaptGene: Posted: June 2, 2014 9:18 p.m.

Indeed you did. You would allow the racist organization to remain, but you would fine them if they use racist language. Is that what you're saying? So, a Country Club could be whites only, and you'd be fine with that?


RobertBurton: Posted: June 2, 2014 10:13 p.m.

We have other laws that take care of those concerns of yours. My law would strictly address racist language, would attempt to eliminate it, and, hence, ultimately, as a result, live in racial harmony!
I must say that your comments are making me think deeper on the issues that I shall address in my proposal. Indeed, without the give and take of our comments, I would not feel as confident in my positions. Please note that I am against any Club that eliminates entry based on race.


CaptGene: Posted: June 2, 2014 7:46 a.m.

I, for one, can't wait to see your campaign get underway. Farewell. --edited.


RobertBurton: Posted: June 3, 2014 1:53 a.m.

I am glad that you are in my corner, to use an ex-pugilist saying. The proposal will be about twenty pages. I have already began the first two pages. This is my first time writing a proposal, so I will check out from the public library a book about how to write formal proposals. Do you know of any such books by author and title?
One of the ancient Roman orators, I forget which one, said that "a victory devoid of danger is a victory devoid of glory." I understand that, totally.


CaptGene: Posted: June 3, 2014 7:47 a.m.

As stated previously: "Just to be clear, I do not favor the proposed legislation, I favor watching you trying to do it. I feel it would be incredibly entertaining." If, to you, that qualifies me as "in your corner" then so be it.


RobertBurton: Posted: June 3, 2014 4:59 p.m.

Somebody in the police department tells me that it is already taking place, but it is not enforced--my law, as you know, would be enforced. That is, stating racist words--especially in public--is already against the law, but it is a law that is not enforced. He went on to say that in many cases it is an infraction of disturbing the peace! Hence, I guess that I am improving an old law with new vigor! By the way, I spy a little bit of faith in you as regards my proposal--much more so now by you than in the beginning.


CaptGene: Posted: June 3, 2014 8:21 p.m.

Zero faith in your proposal now or ever, nada nunca none. You, sir, are a nutburger.


RobertBurton: Posted: June 4, 2014 9:53 p.m.

How many times have things been called impossible until they were actually done. People said that making an airplane was just impossible--until it was done. The four-minute mile was first thought of as being impossible until it was actually done. In fact, in the beginning, police departments were thought of as being downright impossible until Sir Robert Peal, prime minister of Britain, invented one. They thought Peal had flipped his lid, as it were, until police departments were actually invented. All I am doing is writing a proposal which, after all else is said and done, might help to clear up racism before racism becomes such an issue in America that it threatens our overall existence as a country.


CaptGene: Posted: June 4, 2014 6:49 a.m.

Nobody has said your proposal is impossible, except you. In fact, forms of what you are suggesting have been proposed and implemented in all manner of totalitarian regimes.


RobertBurton: Posted: June 4, 2014 8:34 a.m.

First, you say that I am "a nutburger," but then you say I am promoting "totalitarian regimes!" The two, however, are completely different: in the first case, you are saying that I am mentally deranged, but, in the second case, you show your prejudice of all governments different than our government!
The fact is that I am neither mentally deranged nor a promoter of totalitarian regimes. Rather, I am coming to the aid of a country that is on the verge of collapse because of severe racial prejudice which goes unchecked. My law, like all laws, is based from proper morality. There is no reason at all why racist language ought be permitted--hence, my law outlaws language which ought not be in the first place. Can you give me one good reason why racist language ought be permitted? Such language is immoral, and, hence, injures humanity to a great degree. Freedom of speech, therefore, is not injured by getting rid of immoral language. I am supporting America's best interests, not totalitarian regimes. Rather than being mentally deranged, I am much wiser than the average American.


CaptGene: Posted: June 4, 2014 9:50 a.m.

Either you're nuts, or you're pulling my leg either way, I'm done with you. I really hope you pursue your dream of limiting free speech, it will be a barrel of laughs to watch.


RobertBurton: Posted: June 4, 2014 10:43 a.m.

You might like to have a copy of my proposal upon its completion, in early August, 2014. I have began writing the first draft, and I think you would enjoy reading it! If so, let me know in the middle of August, 2014. Your only fear of my proposal is that it limits free speech, but I say that free speech does not include emotionally injuring another race--and sometimes a physical action results! I think the reason you say that you are through with me is that my reasoning outshines your reasoning, and, hence, forces you to do away with long-held opinions of yours that my proposal, easily, proves to be invalid.


RobertBurton: Posted: June 4, 2014 6:10 p.m.

You keep talking about me limiting free speech, but I propose that racist language is not at all free speech-- if it were Donald Sterling would still have his job with the LA Clippers. Again, racism, which is the final objective to racist language, is threatening the welfare of our country, so much so that if something is not done about it soon America will die off. I do not want to sit by and see that happen, and neither should you! Indeed, the racist issue here in America is politically "a hot potato." Nobody wants to try and fix it except yours truly. My proposal is much needed.


tech: Posted: June 5, 2014 1:43 p.m.

When Lemon asked the actor whether he believed that race was a major contributing factor to income inequality, Freeman sternly disagreed.

“Do you think that race plays in a part in wealth distribution?” Lemon asked.

“No, no, no, I don’t. You and I are, we’re proof. Why would race have anything to do with it. Put your mind to what you want to do and go for that. It’s kind of like religion to me, it’s a good excuse for not getting there,” Freeman answered.

When Lemon complained about how much he has been forced to cover race and income inequality, Freeman asserted that he should stop making such a big deal out of the issue.

“If you talk about it, it exists,” Freeman said. “It’s not like it exists and we refuse to talk about it. Making it a bigger issue than it needs to be is the problem we have.”

- See more at: http://rare.us/story/morgan-freeman-nails-the-income-inequality-debate-in-this-powerful-1-minute-video/#sthash.V86XB4ho.dpuf


RobertBurton: Posted: June 5, 2014 3:14 p.m.

I find that white people tend to say that racism, whites against African Americans, is not that bad, and African Americans tend to say that racism is still as bad as ever! African Americans say that racism is more insidious, these days, and, hence, harder to document. However, I do think that the children of today are less racist than at any other time in the history of America, and that if we can stay a nation, say, for the next twenty years, I expect racial integration to be at an all-time high. I, certainly, hope so. In twenty years, I shall be 82 years of age, so I might still be here.


ricketzz: Posted: June 20, 2014 8:04 a.m.

Mr. Freeman understands completely that the 1% have equal contempt for all poor people, regardless of tint.



You need to be a registered user to post a comment. Please click here to register.

The Signal encourages readers to interact with one another, following the guidelines outlined in our Comment/Moderation Policy. Click here to read it.

To report offensive or inappropriate comments, e-mail abuse@signalscv.com. The content posted from readers of signalscv.com does not necessarily represent the views of The Signal or Morris Multimedia. By submitting this form you agree to the terms and conditions listed above. Thank you in advance for your cooperation.

 
 

Powered By
Morris Technology
Please wait ...