Freedom of Speech

Home Forums Decaffeinated Coffee Freedom of Speech

Viewing 50 posts - 1 through 50 (of 74 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #1882257
    Reb Eliezer
    Participant

    The prsident said the confederate flag is freedom of speech. Is a swastika freedom of speech?

    #1882302
    DovidBT
    Participant

    Yes.

    #1882304
    BillyW
    Participant

    Of course it’s Free Speech. That’s why it was surprising when a N.Y. politician wanted to ban flyng it and it would never hold up in court.
    Besides, the Confederate Flag is dofferent. It wasn’t always associated with White Supremacy. Growing up south of the Mason-Dixon line it was quite common and we didn’t find it offensive. I’ve had Confederate Flags coffee mugs, shot glasses, etc. We even had a big one in our Yeshiva dorm. We are hardly White Supremacists. That doesn’t mean I would fly one today because I want to be sensitive. But it also doesn’t elicit a negative reaction.

    #1882303
    Pekak
    Participant

    Some people are offended by the way Frum Yidden dress. It’s called freedom of expression. Until somebody acts upon Confederate or Nazi beliefs by owning slaves or operating a death camp it’s constitutionally protected.

    Be as liberal as you want. Hate my President as much as you want. Remember, they can come after your rights as well.

    #1882307
    NOYB
    Participant

    Yes. A swastika is davka freedom of speech. You don’t need a law protecting the right to say “good morning”. You need a law to protect speech people don’t like. People have the right to display a swastika, and I have a right to tell everyone what a disgusting racist they are and how we should all boycott any business they have or ask a nazi’s employer if that’s really who they want representing their company. We can’t just outlaw things that make us uncomfortable, even if we are uncomfortable for a good reason. We have to allow people to express their ideas, and then react appropriately.

    #1882335
    Ben Levi
    Participant

    It is mind boggling to me how completely devoid of historical knowledge Liberal Jews seem to be.

    the Jewish people have thousands of years of experience in exile. We have been kicked out of one country after another.

    for the last couple of hundred years we have been fortunate enough to find refuge and prosperity in this “Medinah shel Chesed”

    It was named that by our grandparents who lived through the horrors of the countries that we were in previously.

    Do you think they came to a country that loved them?
    That was free of Anti-Antisemitism?
    If you know anything about the history of the United States you know that the History of the United States is replete with Anti Antisemitism at every level. Look up a synopsis of the video Gentlemens Agreement.

    Yet still they moved here.
    Still they prospered here.
    Still we thrived here.

    Because even though we were hated by many.
    Even though Anti-Antisemitism was rife.
    The founding bedrock of the United States was one thing.
    Freedom.
    You can have beliefs I believe are abhorrent,
    You can hate me.
    But as long as I don’t act on them.
    As long as I do not try and force them on you .
    You have Freedom.
    Freedom to worship as you wish.
    Freedom to talk as you wish.
    Freedom to dress as you wish.
    Freedom to live where you wish.

    The second those freedoms are compromised.
    We are all in danger.
    We are a minute minority.
    Do you really think that Liberals will stand up and defend our right to teach Chumash the way we wish?
    Do you really think they do not find ideas in the Torah to be contrary to their belief system?

    Do you really think the heads of the BLM movement who have expressed their intent to destroy the nuclear family to respect out family way of life?

    The only thing that differentiates the USA from most of the Arab world where a Jew cannot live.
    From England of old which banned Jews from living there.
    From Spain, Portugal, & the rest which kicked out all who did not convert is simply Freedom.

    And as Jews we should know that.

    #1882359
    ubiquitin
    Participant

    “Is a swastika freedom of speech?”

    Without question

    #1882361
    akuperma
    Participant

    Under American law, the only time being pro-Nazi was illegal was when the United States was at war with Nazi Germany. Supporting the idea that the South should be given independence was never illegal even during the Civil War (persons arrested for supporting the South were not charged with a crime or prosecuted, though they were arrested under the suspension of habeas corpus, which was subsequently found to have been illegal).

    One should also note that reconciliation with the defeated rebels was a key aspect of American policy, going back to Lincoln in 1865. In other countries the animosity over civil wars often lasted centuries (e.g. it was still controversial in 20th century Britain whether they could honor Oliver Cromwell, who was the “Jefferson Davis” of the British civil war). One should note (WOKE propaganda to the contrary) the even though the Germans in World War II presented strong racial arguments to American southerners including advocating a re-enslavement of Black Americans, they found no takers – the policy of reconciliation that is denounced may be a major reason why there was southern “third column” supporting the Nazis.

    #1882365
    charliehall
    Participant

    Th Confederate flags were ALWAYS about white supremacy. The entire reason the Confederacy was formed was that they realized that the long term future of slavery was poor in a modern free market economy.

    #1882388
    Reb Eliezer
    Participant

    Google Skokie, Illinois. It is only freedom of speech when it does not hurt the president, but publishing the niece
    Mary’s book is not.

    #1882451
    som1
    Participant

    “is a swastika freedom of speech”
    shows how leftists no nothing about our constitutional rights

    #1882462
    Ben Levi
    Participant

    A person flying a swastika disgusts me personally.

    But again flying a swastika is an expression of that persons freedom of speech.

    If I were to take away that persons right because it offend me. And not just me but the majority of the USA (hopefully) then what is to be when wish to celebrate publicly my children learning Chumash?

    As a minority we are simply foolish if we do not realize that suppressing and freedom of minority’s is only putting us in danger.

    #1882463
    Ben Levi
    Participant

    Reb Eliezer.

    You are being disingenuos.
    I realize that you hate the President but the legal matters surrounding Mary’s book are complex.
    And the tv shows interviewing a member of a family that is itching to get back at the whole family for perceived wrongs are making fools themselves.

    Most decent sized families in America have one of those.

    #1882466
    Ben Levi
    Participant

    Regarding the President.
    I wonder what would happen in Russia if respected media organs such as CNN of the NY TIMES tied writing about Putin the way they do PRes. Trump?
    How about Iran or China?

    #1882476
    bsharg2
    Participant

    “It is mind boggling to me how completely devoid of historical knowledge Liberal Jews seem to be.

    the Jewish people have thousands of years of experience in exile. We have been kicked out of one country after another. for the last couple of hundred years we have been fortunate enough to find refuge and prosperity in this “Medinah shel Chesed”

    @Ben Levi: You are right.

    Liberal Jews have unfortunately been pulled apart from the Torah, and most have zero knowledge of their religion. They are in desperate need of kiruv. They need at least to have some exposure to Judaism.

    “The second those freedoms are compromised.
    We are all in danger.
    We are a minute minority.
    Do you really think that Liberals will stand up and defend our right to teach Chumash the way we wish?
    Do you really think they do not find ideas in the Torah to be contrary to their belief system?

    Do you really think the heads of the BLM movement who have expressed their intent to destroy the nuclear family to respect out family way of life?

    The only thing that differentiates the USA from most of the Arab world where a Jew cannot live.”

    Absolutely. Liberals (mostly non Jews) are haters of religion in general, they feel that our way of life is wrong. They would LOVE to outlaw our religious freedoms. In fact, they are everywhere fighting to remove religious freedoms. They even have a problem with the 10 Commandments being posted in schools. They attack the institution of marriage, child-bearing, and normal families. They view all religions as “oppressive”. They are haters of Hashem. They love to publish hate speech about observant Jews.

    You’re right, we need to fight to protect all freedoms of expression and freedoms of religion because these anarchist mobs will easily outlaw our way of life and then we can no longer worship freely.

    #1882503
    n0mesorah
    Participant

    Dear Ben,
    Your post does not seem to reflect a strong sense of history.

    #1882507
    Pekak
    Participant

    @RebEliezer

    Everybody has a legal right to try and get a restraining order against another person or try to stop them from publishing a book inthis case. If you prove it in court gezuntrtheit.

    You obviously get all your info from CNN and MSNBC. If you were to open your mind you would find that conservative and pro-Trump voices are silenced much more often than liberals. Twitter, YouTube and Facebook are known for silencing Conservatives and deleting their accounts. They call it hate speech.

    #1882508
    n0mesorah
    Participant

    I do not think this post was questioning a general display of The Confederate Flag. There are two instances that it could be illegal. 1) To incite hate. 2) Anywhere that it is beholden to The Civil Rights Act. [Such as the workplace.] The Prosecution would have to prove that the flag is being used to intimidate or discriminate.

    Additionally,a lot of public places (malls, stadiums, etc.) have rules about what you can display or wear. You can ask to see the written rules. Or they may give it to you when they call security to remove you.

    #1882538
    anonymous Jew
    Participant

    Reb eliezer, can you possibly be more ignorant of our system of government? Trump’s niece signed a non disclosure agreement as part of the settlement of her grandfather’s will.
    What does Skokie have to do with Trump?

    What is truly scary is the increasingly overt fascism of the far left. The long time director of the San Francisco museum of art was accused of racism and forced to resign. His sin? At a meeting regarding diversity of their art collection, he said they would continue to collect art by white artists!!
    Apparently issues like this ( and the Times editor ) don’t bother Reb eliezer , GDH, and Charlie Hall

    #1882563
    n0mesorah
    Participant

    Dear Anonymous,
    I have no idea why this is called fascism. If you care, that museum has been trying to untangle itself from having profited of minority artists for a really long time. [It was common practice to only pay the best artists. And promotions depended on connections.] Even if the story happened as you portrayed it, at worst that is anarchy. Fascism could apply when someone or something is put into power.

    The NYT editor is a unique story. There were a number of instances of reporters being attacked or arrested during the protests. [Both protests. Stay at home orders and Police use of force.] The NYT is looked as the pulpit of american media. In the NYT newsroom they were trying to put together an editorial about the CNN crew being arrested on live television. In the meantime the Editor published a piece from Tom Cotton to send in the military against the protesters. The NYT reporters felt like they were betrayed. And they mutinied.

    #1882578
    Ben Levi
    Participant

    Dear Ben,
    Your post does not seem to reflect a strong sense of history.

    n0mesorah
    Can you elaborate on what you mean?

    #1882610
    se2015
    Participant

    Trump was asked for his views concerning the confederate flag and replied freedom of speech, which is the non-answer you’d expect from someone who speaks out of all 10 sides of his mouth. Freedom of speech protects all kinds of offensive speech, including racist and anti-semitic symbols, flag waiving, flag burning, profanity and explicit websites (grab bag there — pick what you find offensive). Incidentally, it also protects nascar’s decision to ban the confederate flag. If Trump had been asked for his views on displaying swastikas, and he had said “all I say is freedom of speech, it’s very simple, my attitude is freedom of speech,” I would hope many here would find that problematic. You can almost hear the wink. Any person with any sense of morality would point out that it’s offensive and that the world would be better off without it, even if it is protected speech. If he’s not an apologist for the racists in his fanbase, he sure does a good job of playing one on TV.

    #1882603
    n0mesorah
    Participant

    Dear Bsharg,
    Ben may be right, but you are waaaay off. I am not sure why your post about liberal jews is allowed. Maybe for the sake of speech it could stay in this conversation.

    Just to question if you or someone else made up this ‘list’. Liberals hate religion? Outlaw Freedoms? Fighting everywhere? Attack marriage? child bearing? Religion as opressive?

    I doubt that any group of Jews is fully comfortable with the all the many concepts of the Torah. It takes a studious individual, years of study and theorizing before he can harmonize The Torah into a comprehensive outlook.

    PS Ben was incorrect about at least one thing. I saw the original statement from BLM. They have nothing against BLM. Quite the opposite, though it is worded unobtrusively. The right wing journalists that work long days would have no understanding of what background support is needed for families. (Please remember that our nuclear family is still a lot stronger than the average american family.)

    #1882639
    Ben Levi
    Participant

    As a Jew I would like to state openly and clearly I am fully comfortable with all that is written in the Torah.

    And yes I realize that modern day “morality” is in conflict with portions of it.

    That is why my version of reality is influenced more by Pirkei Avos then the NYT ethicist.

    And I am fully aware that that means I find some of the “morals’ of the Liberal Left to be very immoral.

    .

    #1882637
    Ben Levi
    Participant

    n0mesorah,
    I am not referring to any “parve” statements.
    I am referring to the stated goals of the founders and leaders of the BLM movement.

    They have openly stated they are Marxist.

    They have openly stated that they have studied the works of Marx,Lenin, & Stalin

    3 of the most prolific mass -murders in History.

    Men who murdered 10’s of millions and plunged millions more into poverty.

    After 9/11 the inquiry stated that “they were at War with us but we were not at war with them”.

    A good part of the reason is becuase even though they openly stated their goals. The West refused to beleive them.

    I suggest we learn from History.
    If they state they are Marxist. If they Have studied Marxism. Then how about we believe them?

    #1882690
    Milhouse
    Participant

    akuperma: Under American law, the only time being pro-Nazi was illegal was when the United States was at war with Nazi Germany.

    Even then it was legal to be pro-Nazi. The first amendment has no exception for wartime. Taking actions for the purpose of helping the enemy is treason; but simply saying the enemy is right is protected speech.

    n0m, wrong as usual: I do not think this post was questioning a general display of The Confederate Flag. There are two instances that it could be illegal. 1) To incite hate. 2) Anywhere that it is beholden to The Civil Rights Act. [Such as the workplace.]

    The first amendment knows of no exception for “inciting hate”. Nor can the civil rights laws override it.

    The situation of a confederate flag in the workplace is legally tricky. The government has no authority to make it illegal to display it in the workplace; however your employer can forbid it, and the government has effectively required all employers to do so. If you put up a swastika at work you are in no legal trouble; but if your employer doesn’t make you take it down he can be in trouble. But this hasn’t been thoroughly tested; if an employer were to refuse to ban it, and insist that doing so violates his freedom of speech, he might well prevail.

    As for BLM, the entire movement is premised on a lie. Remember that it all started with “Hands up don’t shoot”, i.e. the LIE that the vicious thug Michael Brown was trying to surrender when he was shot. And from the very beginning, in Ferguson, it was antisemitic. Funded by Soros, the organizers blamed Israel for Brown’s death.

    #1882694
    Ben Levi
    Participant

    Just top clarify what the “mainstream media” will not tell you about BLM

    The following info is readily available from many sources,

    “As Black Lives Matter activism continues to spread throughout the country—with demonstrators calling for the defunding of police departments and radical overhauls to significant portions of the United States—a video resurfaced this week in which one of the founders of the black activism group affirmed that she and her co-founder are “trained Marxists” who are well-versed in “ideological theories.”

    Though it is ostensibly a group dedicated primarily to fighting and ending racism and police brutality in the United States, Black Lives Matter itself deals heavily in language and rhetoric steeped in left-wing ideology. The group states on its website that it is dedicated to “issues concerning racial injustice, police brutality, criminal justice reform, Black immigration, economic injustice, LGBTQIA+ and human rights, environmental injustice, access to healthcare, access to quality education, and voting rights and suppression.”

    Those progressive fixations do not appear to be accidental. In a video interview from 2015, one of the group’s founders admitted that she and her fellow co-founder are dedicated to the ideology of Karl Marx, the father of “scientific socialism” and foundational figure of the international communist movement.

    Patrisse Cullors, who founded the group with Alicia Garza and Opal Tometi in 2013, was interviewed by Morgan State University Professor Jared Ball in 2015 regarding the movement she helped to create. Ball in that interview asked Cullors about “critiques” of her group, ones that allege “a lack of perhaps ideological direction in Black Lives Matter that would allow it to be, to fizzle out.”

    Responding to that question, Cullors said that the group “do[es] have an ideological frame.”

    “Myself and Alicia in particular are trained organizers. We are trained Marxists. We are super-versed on, sort of, ideological theories,” she said, adding that the group’s founders sought to “build a movement that could be utilized by many, many black folk.”

    #1882800
    n0mesorah
    Participant

    Dear Ben,
    That is a wonderful statement to make!

    Are you prepared to submit to the word of a Jewish Prophet? (Degraded, harmed…. Sefer Melachim 1 20 & Yeshiyahu 20)

    #1882732
    huju
    Participant

    There is so much that is so wrong in these comments, but I have only one thing to say, to Ben Levi: I am a liberal, and a Jew, and I know way more American history than you know.

    Speaking of history, I remember when conservatives favored the prosecution of burners of the American flag, and a case went to the Supreme Court, and the court upheld the burning as an exercise of free speech. I remember when conservatives wanted to prosecute leftist wearers of shirts that looked like they were made out of American flags. I cannot remember whether there was a prosecution or Supreme Court case on the issue, but now you can buy such shirts on line, and conservatives wear them at conservative protests.

    So if you feel like burning a swastika flag, you have liberals to thank for bringing a case to the Supreme Court and affirming that right.

    #1882873
    n0mesorah
    Participant

    Dear Ben,
    Nobody ever thought or claimed that BLM is a conservative group. But your knowledge of the social sciences seems laughable. Stalin is the mass murderer. Lenin caused a lot of trouble. But never even thought of political genocide. Marx never murdered anyone. What in the world do you mean by Stalin’s works? His poetry?

    I can see that your facts are all mixed up. I googled one of your statements, and The Yeshiva World was the first hit. With everything else missing keywords.

    #1882871
    Ben Levi
    Participant

    n0mesorah,
    I assume that you state that you fullfill the chiyuv of Anim Mamin which codifies the obligation of each Jews to long for Moshiach?

    HuJu,
    I appreciate you stating “There is so much wrong in these comments”
    Perhaps you can be specific?

    #1882867
    n0mesorah
    Participant

    Dear Milhouse,
    This is what I meant.

    In 1942, the Supreme Court said that the First Amendment doesn’t protect “fighting words,” or statements that “by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace” Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568 (1942).

    For you BLM can be based on a lie. For people who live in it, it would be lying to see from without, all that is experienced in the first hand.

    #1882911
    som1
    Participant

    ” Lenin caused a lot of trouble. But never even thought of political genocide.”
    lenin killed apr. 3.7 million civilians and a lso most of his political enemies

    #1882900
    Ben Levi
    Participant

    n0mesorah,
    Google Stalin’s works the first result results is for an archive of his works preserved by Marxists.
    Glad I could educate you.

    “Lenin caused a lot of trouble. But never even thought of political genocide.”

    The figures of victims of Leninism, from November 1917 to January 1924

    More than a million people murdered for political or religious reasons.
    Between 300,000 and 500,000 Cossacks killed.
    Hundreds of thousands of workers and peasants killed for striking.
    240,000 killed in the suppression of the Tambov rebellion.
    More than 50,000 white prisoners of war executed.
    Between 3.9 million and 7.75 million deaths from famines among Russians, Kazakhs and Tatars’

    in the summer of 1917 Lenin wrote a book, “The State and Revolution”
    In the book, in addition, he already advanced with absolute frankness and before coming to power that violence would use it “both to crush the resistance of the exploiters and to direct the enormous mass of the population, the peasants, the petty bourgeoisie, to the semi-proletarians, in the work of “starting up” the socialist economy.” Years later, one of the closest collaborators of the communist dictator, Leon Trotsky, would write Lenin’s words to those who were reluctant to use terrorism: “Do you really believe that we can be victorious without using the most ruthless terror?”

    Again glad I could educate you.

    #1882905
    Ben Levi
    Participant

    From Wikipedia

    Lenin’s Bolshevik government initially shared power with the Left Socialist Revolutionaries, elected soviets, and a multi-party Constituent Assembly, although by 1918 it had centralised power in the new Communist Party. Lenin’s administration redistributed land among the peasantry and nationalised banks and large-scale industry. It withdrew from the First World War by signing a treaty conceding territory to the Central Powers, and promoted world revolution through the Communist International. Opponents were suppressed in the Red Terror, a violent campaign administered by the state security services; tens of thousands were killed or interned in concentration camps. His administration defeated right and left-wing anti-Bolshevik armies in the Russian Civil War from 1917 to 1922 and oversaw the Polish–Soviet War of 1919–1921. Responding to wartime devastation, famine, and popular uprisings, in 1921 Lenin encouraged economic growth through the market-oriented New Economic Policy. Several non-Russian nations had secured independence from the Russian Empire after 1917, but three were re-united into the new Soviet Union in 1922. His health failing, Lenin died in Gorki, with Joseph Stalin succeeding him as the pre-eminent figure in the Soviet government.

    By early 1918, many cities in western Russia faced famine as a result of chronic food shortages.[249] Lenin blamed this on the kulaks, or wealthier peasants, who allegedly hoarded the grain that they had produced to increase its financial value. In May 1918, he issued a requisitioning order that established armed detachments to confiscate grain from kulaks for distribution in the cities, and in June called for the formation of Committees of Poor Peasants to aid in requisitioning.[250] This policy resulted in vast social disorder and violence, as armed detachments often clashed with peasant groups, helping to set the stage for the civil war.[251] A prominent example of Lenin’s views was his August 1918 telegram to the Bolsheviks of Penza, which called upon them to suppress a peasant insurrection by publicly hanging at least 100 “known kulaks, rich men, [and] bloodsuckers”.[252]

    Requisitioning disincentivised peasants from producing more grain than they could personally consume, and thus production slumped.[253] A booming black market supplemented the official state-sanctioned economy,[254] and Lenin called on speculators, black marketeers and looters to be shot.[255] Both the Socialist Revolutionaries and Left Socialist Revolutionaries condemned the armed appropriations of grain at the Fifth All-Russian Congress of Soviets in July 1918.[256] Realising that the Committees of the Poor Peasants were also persecuting peasants who were not kulaks and thus contributing to anti-government feeling among the peasantry, in December 1918 Lenin abolished them.[257]

    Lenin repeatedly emphasised the need for terror and violence in overthrowing the old order and ensuring the success of the revolution.[258] Speaking to the All-Russian Central Executive Committee of the Soviets in November 1917, he declared that “the state is an institution built up for the sake of exercising violence. Previously, this violence was exercised by a handful of moneybags over the entire people; now we want … to organise violence in the interests of the people.”[259] He strongly opposed suggestions to abolish capital punishment.[260] Fearing anti-Bolshevik forces would overthrow his administration, in December 1917 Lenin ordered the establishment of the Emergency Commission for Combating Counter-Revolution and Sabotage, or Cheka, a political police force led by Felix Dzerzhinsky.[261]

    #1883066
    n0mesorah
    Participant

    Dear Ben,
    Yup, lots of trouble. But if not for Mao, we would not ascribe the massive cost of human life to Lenin. Then again, had Lenin actually considered political genocide there never would have been a Stalin. But this is all moot. As I could not find ant evidence of BLM quoting Lenin or Stalin.

    PS What you found on Stalin’s works is a library collection of speeches dictates and letters. Regular Major world leader stuff. For anyone who has studied Marx and Lenin there is (just about) nothing there. It is there for reference. [Stalin’s ‘works’ is about a dozen pamphlets of drivel. Each one reflects his delusions. From why anarchy fails but Marxism does not to the great successes of soviet agriculture to how WWII was started by the US to how Russia is about to enter the great age of communism. Anyone who ‘studies’ this propaganda is hopelessly out of touch.]

    #1883088
    som1
    Participant

    se2015-“If Trump had been asked for his views on displaying swastikas, and he had said “all I say is freedom of speech, it’s very simple, my attitude is freedom of speech,” I would hope many here would find that problematic. ”
    i would be scared if anyone found it offensive that a president would support the 1st amendment

    #1883182
    se2015
    Participant

    Som1 – problematic, not necessarily scared or offended. You should find it problematic if anyone in a position of power cited the first amendment, and nothing more, when asked for his or opinion about something widely understood to be racist or anti-Semitic. This is the same guy who had a problem with the Obama administration’s avoidance of the phrase radical Islam. The issue is not whether racists and anti semites have a constitutional right to their views, but whether he has the ability to call it by what it is when asked for his views. He would not infringe anyone’s constitutional rights if he repeated the statement he made years ago, that the confederate flag should be relegated to museums. You have to ask yourself what holds him back.

    #1883222
    som1
    Participant

    se-” This is the same guy who had a problem with the Obama administration’s avoidance of the phrase radical Islam.”
    trump doesn’t avoid saying confederate

    #1883231
    Ben Levi
    Participant

    So let me get this straight.
    That President Trump states Freedom of Speech regarding the Confederate Flag, alarms you.

    That the founders of the BLM movement refer to themselves as trained Marxists does not.

    #1883233
    se2015
    Participant

    “trump doesn’t avoid saying confederate”
    Except when his teeth are loose it sounds more like covfefe. Either way, he didn’t call it racist or offensive when asked for his own views. Is that because he thinks it isn’t? Or that he thinks it’s debatable? Or that he doesn’t want to upset his ever shrinking fan base?

    #1883238
    som1
    Participant

    ben levi -“So let me get this straight.
    That President Trump states Freedom of Speech regarding the Confederate Flag, alarms you.

    That the founders of the BLM movement refer to themselves as trained Marxists does not.”

    couldn’t have said it better

    #1883241
    se2015
    Participant

    Ben Levi – if that was addressed to me: my issue was with what trump failed to say, not with the fact that he referred to freedom of speech (not that someone who wages war on media can ever be said to be champion of the first amendment, but I digress)

    As far as BLM and marxism goes: I don’t know what that means exactly. I suspect you don’t either as this thread is full of copy and paste jobs about the soviet union and genocide. I’m no expert on Marxist thought, but it seems more likely that they refer to an academic view of marxism — Marx having been an economist, philosopher, historian, after all, not a soviet dictator — and view history and politics through the prism of class. It’s possible they believe that real societal change happens quickly by revolution (whether ideologically or by physical violence, although I haven’t heard anyone advocate for violent revolution) rather than evolution. This is all very speculative, especially since the context of what you posted was that they were asked if they have any particular ideological direction, none being obvious beyond the immediate goals, and they said yes, they are trained marxists. Just saying the word Marxist doesn’t mean much, at least not to me, other than give a very general idea of the type of influences. Maybe you could explain what about the word Marxist you find scary instead of posting about Lenin. Maybe you could explain why you’re ok with the president giving a pass to racism by focusing on the legality of the speech itself, rather than his views on racist speech, but wouldn’t afford the same to self identified marxists.

    #1883240
    n0mesorah
    Participant

    Dear Ben,
    If you would understand what ‘Marxist’ means, it would not bother you either.

    #1883684
    Ben Levi
    Participant

    I do not at all feel that President Trump gives a “pass” to racist speech.
    I actually listened to the Mt. Rushmore speech where he quoted Martin Luther King and celebrated Black achievements.

    I paid attention the State of the Union where again he made a point of celebrating Black heroes in this country.

    I paid attention to him actually passing sentencing reform bills specifically aimed at mitigating the damage done by Biden to the Black community.

    I have paid attention to his record that includes actual outreach to the Black community in ways never attempted by a Republican President.

    And yes I am aware that the Liberal media is terrified by that. Because if he is actually successful in showing that the Democrats have produced nothing but misery for the Black community and it is the Republicans who are attempting to fix it up.

    The democrats will lose a significant portion of their voting base.

    So they must start a race war.

    #1883685
    Ben Levi
    Participant

    And Yes I am aware of marxism.

    It is a theology that gave birth to some of the most terrible atrocities to have ever taken place.

    #1883724
    n0mesorah
    Participant

    Dear Ben,
    Eh… Maybe there is some truth too that. Being aware of same history, is the not the same as understanding ‘Marxist’. BLM did not mean they are trained in perpetuating terrible atrocities. Please recall that very few Blacks live or have lived in Russia or China. Marx and Marxism is completely Western to them. No reason to scare yourself over nothing……

    #1883849
    Ben Levi
    Participant

    I am curious
    Bid Chavez or Maduro state that he was trained in carrying out atrocities?
    Perhaps Fidel Castro?

    #1883879
    charliehall
    Participant

    Actually wartime suspends First Amendment rights. Eugene Debs went to prison not because he was a socialist but because he was believed to be harming the war effort.

    #1883880
    charliehall
    Participant

    Whom did Marx murder?

    I have been calling out BLM since 2014.

Viewing 50 posts - 1 through 50 (of 74 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.