Best article describing liberals I have read in a long time

C

canceled.2021.1

#AMERICAISDEAD
http://townhall.com/columnists/kurt...e-essential-components-of-liberalism-n1755029


Reason, facts, truth – these bourgeois concepts mean nothing to the adherents of progressivism. You are never going to change the mind of someone who believes in nothing except the imperative of his own absolute power. You simply have to defeat him.


This statement encapsulates it all. That is why I treat left wingers with such disdain. This statement describes left wingers like Deshy, Jarod and Mott to a tee. They aren't the only ones, just the first three dolts that came to mind

If and when the GOP decides it is time to defeat progressivism and not just win elections, I will support them. Until then, fuck em all
 
I don't know about anyone else, but I'm getting frightened of just how partisan the state of politics are getting in America. It's to the point of sheer prejudice. Anytime someone says "all liberals this" or "all right wingers that" I just shake my head, because I know that type of talk is mastubatory and not really meant to solve any kind of problems.
 
Mr.Badguy said:
I don't know about anyone else, but I'm getting frightened of just how partisan the state of politics are getting in America. It's to the point of sheer prejudice. Anytime someone says "all liberals this" or "all right wingers that" I just shake my head, because I know that type of talk is mastubatory and not really meant to solve any kind of problems.
Click to expand...

The way to solve our problems is to eliminate leftists from our government.

The whole "partisan state of politics" is laughable. Nobody is fighting duels, so forgive me if I chuckle at your hand wringing.

Maybe if the politicians would actually follow the US Constitution instead of meddling in every aspect of peoples lives, things wouldn't be so "partisan". Or in the view of leftists, if everyone would just roll over and bend to the will of the statists then all would be right with the world. Everyone would suffer equally, except the leftists of course who are deemed our "betters"
 
But the constitution HAS to be at least somewhat open to interpretation and shouldn't be above scrutiny. American life has changed dramatically since it was written, and is going to keep changing. Therefore we need people with good judgment to make rulings on any perceived "gray areas" that the constitution doesn't exactly cover.

Now whether you agree with these rulings or not is up to you, and you're certainly free to voice your opinion about them and the people responsible for them, but the document itself shouldn't be considered divinely crafted and infallible.
 
Also, do you not see the irony in the hate you have for liberals? You claim they only govern for their own sake, and in the same breath you want them completely removed from government.
 
Mr.Badguy said:
But the constitution HAS to be at least somewhat open to interpretation and shouldn't be above scrutiny. American life has changed dramatically since it was written, and is going to keep changing. Therefore we need people with good judgment to make rulings on any perceived "gray areas" that the constitution doesn't exactly cover.

Now whether you agree with these rulings or not is up to you, and you're certainly free to voice your opinion about them and the people responsible for them, but the document itself shouldn't be considered divinely crafted and infallible.
Click to expand...

And what are these perceived "gray areas", in your opinion?
 
It could be anything, even something as simple as parody being ruled to be a part of free speech and as such protected under the law. That way Weird Al can't be sued every time he puts out an album.
 
Mr.Badguy said:
It could be anything, even something as simple as parody being ruled to be a part of free speech and as such protected under the law. That way Weird Al can't be sued every time he puts out an album.
Click to expand...

So a "Parody as free speech", is the biggest gray area you can think of?
Can you show me where anything by Weird Al resulted in him being found guilty of anything?

Lovers of offbeat music and hard-core rap would probably never use the names "Weird Al Yankovic" and "2 Live Crew" in the same sentence. Yet, they have something very important in common. The law protects their use of other people's musical works. The reason is that courts consider both 2 Live Crew's rap combined with pop music riffs and Weird Al's combination of everything... to be parodies, which are protected under fair use doctrine.
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
So a "Parody as free speech", is the biggest gray area you can think of?
Can you show me where anything by Weird Al resulted in him being found guilty of anything?
Click to expand...

No, you asked me for an example, and I gave you a simple one. I've got a feeling you're trying to egg me on into a much more difficult discussion than this needs to be.

I can't show you Weird Al being found guilty of anything because the Supreme Court ruled parody to be protected. I specifically gave Weird Al as an example because he uses the exact same melodies in his works as the people he's lampooning, which if it weren't protected under free speech could be considered musical plagiarism.
 
Mr.Badguy said:
No, you asked me for an example, and I gave you a simple one. I've got a feeling you're trying to egg me on into a much more difficult discussion than this needs to be.

I can't show you Weird Al being found guilty of anything because the Supreme Court ruled parody to be protected. I specifically gave Weird Al as an example because he uses the exact same melodies in his works as the people he's lampooning, which if it weren't protected under free speech could be considered musical plagiarism.
Click to expand...

You began by promoting an idea of what you thought was a problem.
Then when asked for clarification, you used parodies as an example.
Now that I've shown that your example carried no weight, you backpedal.

You're the one that presented what you felt was a problem and it's up to you to show what the problem is, that you are trying to present.
 
So what would you have me do? List every possible "gray area" that could be perceived by ANYONE in the past or the future? Maybe I should rephrase what I've said throughout this thread so it might make more sense to you.

-My opinion: We need interpretations of and the ability to change the constitution, because situations arise that might be deemed "gray areas" in the text, or otherwise not specifically targeted by the text.
-You asked me for an example of a "gray area"
-I provided the example of parody, more specifically the ruling of Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc. that parody is protected under the First Amendment.
-You called my example not good enough, and posted a link which KIND OF supported what I had just said. (Was that a mistake?)

Again,
GRAY AREA PRE 1994: Parody could have been considered plagiarism under the law of the time.
POST 1994: Parody is protected under the First Amendment thanks to a good (my opinion) ruling by the Supreme Court.

Perhaps my bringing Weird Al into this is specifically where you have a problem. I just used him as an example because he is a famous parody artist and not because I could specifically point to any legal cases in which he was involved. Although, this ruling did give him the legal ability to produce and release the song "Amish Paradise" in 1996, without the consent of Coolio.
 
Last edited:
Mr.Badguy said:
So what would you have me do? List every possible "gray area" that could be perceived by ANYONE in the past or the future? Maybe I should rephrase what I've said throughout this thread so it might make more sense to you.

-My opinion: We need interpretations of and the ability to change the constitution, because situations arise that might be deemed "gray areas" in the text, or otherwise not specifically targeted by the text.
-You asked me for an example of a "gray area"
-I provided the example of parody, more specifically the ruling of Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc. that parody is protected under the First Amendment.
-You called my example not good enough, and posted a link which KIND OF supported what I had just said. (Was that a mistake?)

Again,
GRAY AREA PRE 1994: Parody could have been considered plagiarism under the law of the time.
POST 1994: Parody is protected under the First Amendment thanks to a good (my opinion) ruling by the Supreme Court.

Perhaps my bringing Weird Al into this is specifically where you have a problem. I just used him as an example because he is a famous parody artist and not because I could specifically point to any legal cases in which he was involved. Although, this ruling did give him the legal ability to produce and release the song "Amish Paradise" in 1996, without the consent of Coolio.
Click to expand...

So basically it boils down to you just wanting to rant and rave, without having a true basis for the rant.
It's a rant about what could POSSIBLY be a gray area, without having a gray area. :palm:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top