Who does free speech help more: liberals or conservatives?

Lucid Lunacy
^That's like the 4th time this member has posted that randomly...

Lol guess I'm a lunatic

YouSir
reply to post by darkbake

 

Ummm...I really don't think it has anything to do with your assertion that..."those not claiming to be liberal"...believe that..."liberals are the only ones to get offended". I think that it's more a commentary on the USE of "being offended" as one of the cornerstone tools of the movement.

Really makes me wonder why all I hear on AM radio is so called conservatives crying victim everyday and you have already done it to me in the short time I have been a member here. Is it possible these labels are misleading you into cherry picking? All cons good, all libs bad??? Really?

YouSir
reply to post by Buttonlip

 

Ummm...Ha,Ha,Ha....Ha,Ha,Haaaaaa........Wow, you sure do provide some much needed comic relief in this debate......You need to realize that I'm not offended or hurt or angry...

So you just lash out rudely for fun? Sounds like a sad way to live.

I'm simply passing the time trying to relieve some boredom at my fave entertainment outlet so unbunch your panties and relax..............and...welcome to ATS

YouSir

Funny how you still have not addressed my actual point. You talk about cogent and concise arguments, then make statements without doing any of that yourself. When I show you what it looks like in return, you talk about my anus and my underwear. So odd.

I guess I can just conclude you have no COGENT and CONCISE argument for the things you say, you just expect it from others. Got it.

Free speech should be exercised and respected by all.

By the way. Liberals = conservatives = democrats = republicans = Pile of Shi...

Buttonlip

Amagnon
The political parties are just an illusion, they all have the same agenda - which is to protect the financial elite, for whom they work. The mass media, mainstream economists, health specialists, scientists - they all work for the same people - the owners of the western anglo-american empire - the financial elite.

I agree with everything you said minus your statement about science. That is quite ethnocentric. The vast majority of scientists dwell outside the US. They have no affiliation to our political parties nor corporate leaders. Science in on the few pure things we have left as it is an amalgamation of many different political view points, religious beliefs, and cultural backgrounds.

For that matter, most of the world accepts science. It is here in the US where we have the most deniers of it. There is no liberal or GOP science. Science is far larger than the US.

I strongly disagree with you in this respect - and this is a common misconception, that science is somehow 'pure' and not corrupted by money, influence, monopoly.

The entire scientific apparatus has been developed into a pyramid style structure, where scientific authority, reputation and credibility are a reward for supporting the 'standard models'. Those standard models are the way in which science is presented to the general population as if it were gospel. The penalty for attacking this standard view is marginalization at the minimum, or career or literal death at the extreme.

The puppets who have their faces splashed everywhere, and those who generally considered to be the 'top men' or authority are working to promote the globalists visions - they are not doing science.

The following is a list of things that have been influenced and corrupted by the financial elite that are fairly well known and easily re-searchable;

Climate - warming or cooling (a graduate in any science can research this easily themselves and the conclusions are concrete)
GMO's - a great deal of scientific evidence covered up for a long time
Flouridation of water - massive amount of cover-up
Nuclear energy - huge amounts of money pumped into it to support bad technology for purpose of weapons manufacture
Cannabis - bad science used to prevent its widespread competition with drugs and paper manufacture

Now, in addition I will give you some more extra-ordinary things, which you will likely find unbelievable;

Cold fusion - Ponsman and Fleisch were massacred by big oil - some unknown process was discovered and concealed

Relativity/field equations - this utter rubbish was sponsored to lock in the fossil fuel monopoly and prevent the disclosure of advanced energy and propulsion technology

Einstein is a fraud - a poster boy for the globalists and has set physics back nearly 100yrs and counting - why is he so famous? Matter energy equivalence might be a pretty big deal, but his fame is out of place with his so called discoveries - the fame around him was created to ensure that his theories could not be attacked, and those who challenged him could more easily be dismissed.

Spiramirabilis

Buttonlip

Lucid Lunacy
I think who benefits from freedom of speech the most would be answered by asking a different question. Who benefits the least by freedom of speech; the people at the top.

Huh????? The people at the top benefit least? Please explain.

Free speech is often criticism

Voltaire said, "To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize.

----

To be clear, I am not afraid of Democrats, I am afraid of the next election cycle, where the conservatives, who have been radicalizing, are going to be handed Obama's mechanisms on a silver platter.

Amagnon
I strongly disagree with you in this respect - and this is a common misconception, that science is somehow 'pure' and not corrupted by money, influence, monopoly.

Odd that you would take the time to express that you do not agree with something I never actually said.

The entire scientific apparatus has been developed into a pyramid style structure, where scientific authority, reputation and credibility are a reward for supporting the 'standard models'. Those standard models are the way in which science is presented to the general population as if it were gospel. The penalty for attacking this standard view is marginalization at the minimum, or career or literal death at the extreme.

You are going to have to back that up for me because that is not the reality I see at all.

The puppets who have their faces splashed everywhere, and those who generally considered to be the 'top men' or authority are working to promote the globalists visions - they are not doing science.

Yet what I mentioned was nothing about those on top but a grand global consensus among those at the top, the bottom and all in between.

The following is a list of things that have been influenced and corrupted by the financial elite that are fairly well known and easily re-searchable;

Climate - warming or cooling (a graduate in any science can research this easily themselves and the conclusions are concrete)
GMO's - a great deal of scientific evidence covered up for a long time
Flouridation of water - massive amount of cover-up
Nuclear energy - huge amounts of money pumped into it to support bad technology for purpose of weapons manufacture
Cannabis - bad science used to prevent its widespread competition with drugs and paper manufacture

Now, in addition I will give you some more extra-ordinary things, which you will likely find unbelievable;

Outside the US, there is no argument over these things.

Cold fusion - Ponsman and Fleisch were massacred by big oil - some unknown process was discovered and concealed

You mean the same big oil that tries so hard to deny climate change but can only get a tiny minority of scientists throughout the whole world to go along?

Relativity/field equations - this utter rubbish was sponsored to lock in the fossil fuel monopoly and prevent the disclosure of advanced energy and propulsion technology

Einstein is a fraud - a poster boy for the globalists and has set physics back nearly 100yrs and counting - why is he so famous? Matter energy equivalence might be a pretty big deal, but his fame is out of place with his so called discoveries - the fame around him was created to ensure that his theories could not be attacked, and those who challenged him could more easily be dismissed.

Wow, Einstein is a fraud and set physics back ?????? So strange that I neither see your credentials or a decent argument to back that claim. You bluster a lot but gave me no reason to accept any of what you said and you REALLY need to do something about this Einstein claim. I never heard such a thing and you give no reason to buy it.

reply to post by darkbake


It helps everyone. Both sides lie to make their viewpoints seem more valid. The truth is somewhere in between.

Free speech should benefit anyone who speaks the truth and explains their point of view using logic and facts. The ideology they follow is irrelevant as the truth is universal. Those who can only empower their views by repression of other views will always fail, many might suffer before that happens but when it does happen I would not want to be one of those people to say the least. I'm a person of mercy and forgiveness but history has show the rest of humanity is not as forgiving as I.

The concept to grasp here is that when you get to the extremes of left or right ideology they become mirror images of themselves. They function pretty much the same. Right down to concept of restricting freedom of speech. A moderate liberal isn't going to like your politically incorrect terms, but they aren't going to try and stop you from saying them. A moderate religious conservative isn't going to like you criticising his religion, but he isn't going to try and stop you from stating your opinions or arguments. These moderates are probably just not going to be your friends or associate with you. That's about it.

Since this thread is still ongoing, I just wanted to point out that free speech absolutely helps liberals more because it is ONLY through free speech that one is able to bring up a legitimate argument based on facts that flies in the face of dogma based on keeping people in power without being held accountable for their actions.

I have an example regarding a cat that I am trying to get from a friend who lives on a farm in order to keep her at my house. I have to get shots for the kitten prior to allowing her into my apartment, however, the farmer who is getting me the kitten is getting impatient because I cannot get an appointment for the cat until next Monday.

The farmer is pushing anger and even sabotaging energies in my direction but is not easily willing to listen to the reasoning behind the delay, which is that I would prefer not to violate my lease.

It is only through freedom of speech that I would be allowed to bring up the legitimate point that my lease could be violated and the farmer needs to stand down while I look into alternatives.

Notice here that without free speech, I would have two options - lose my apartment or risk the farmer trying to retaliate in some manner at me for not picking up the kitten.

In any case, I need to attempt to act in a tactful and positive manner towards a solution.

A conservative government is highly likely to be similar to that farmer in its thinking, for better or for worse. It is my opinion, in fact, although this is definitely of a conspirator nature, that the liberal reactions to free speech such as the Duck Dynasty issue are probably going to come back to haunt them.

The liberal actions regarding suppressing conservative free speech will sink into the subconscious of the nation and remain there when the conservatives hold the reigns.

I believe the reality of the situation is that conservatives have a gigantic upper-hand in the next election for President and many of the Senate seats. The house is already full of radicalized Tea Party members.

As things go now, the only real support I see for Democrats comes from articles in The Economist about how far from reality the U.S. Republican Policies are - quite the criticism coming from a magazine that supports economic practices over bureaucracy.

But to me, that spells more danger than good - it means that there is a strong delusional streak in the U.S. that is not only gaining strength, but losing touch with reason, and in addition, now has the moral imperative from its liberal opponents to stifle legitimate criticism.

Saucerking
The concept to grasp here is that when you get to the extremes of left or right ideology they become mirror images of themselves. They function pretty much the same.

Definitely - and in the U.S. we seem to have lost a lot of middle ground. I think the reactionary nature of the voters here presents a danger of switching rapidly from hard-line liberal to hard-line conservative policy makers, and combined with the recent N.S.A. surveillance and attacks on free speech and even whistle-blowers and the press (which are Neutral mechanisms available to either party) this could lead to a dangerous political climate.

Freedom of speech helps free people.
It hinders both liberal and conservative wings of the political paradigm. Being as politics is about control and corruption, then freedom of speech and information is an enemy of both.
Politics is about saying what people want to hear, not what they actually want.

Hence we have the current clampdown on internet freedoms, and freedoms of expression for fear of offending someone(aka finding or speaking the truth).
The NWO isnt coming, we are right slap bang in it. The truth is a lie and lies are the truth, welcome to the new world.

Saucerking
The concept to grasp here is that when you get to the extremes of left or right ideology they become mirror images of themselves. They function pretty much the same. Right down to concept of restricting freedom of speech. A moderate liberal isn't going to like your politically incorrect terms, but they aren't going to try and stop you from saying them. A moderate religious conservative isn't going to like you criticising his religion, but he isn't going to try and stop you from stating your opinions or arguments. These moderates are probably just not going to be your friends or associate with you. That's about it.

I would agree with you, but I would change "moderate" to "intellectually honest." I would say that some of my views aren't necessarily considered "moderate," but that doesn't mean I attempt to shut people down. They're free to say that they're going to say. I prefer it that way because it means that if we're all being fair, then I should get the same latitude in turn. I might ask folks to back off or lighten up, but that doesn't mean I want them to shut up.

reply to post by darkbake


We'll see how it goes, but I think you misunderstand some things about TEA Party members. For one, I am a TEA Party member. There are a decent number of libertarian leaning sorts in the TEA Party. A lot of us want to dismantle as much of the government as we can, and while you are correct that the left has handed us a great mechanism on a silver platter, if we get the right people in place, hopefully we will be using it for our version of revenge - dismantling as much of the fed as we can down to brass tacks. That's what a bare constitutional government means and that's what the original TEA Party was formed to do ... well that and reform the tax code.

The ones you need to be worried about are the establishment types who like big government and will not hesitate to use the same apparatus in all those ways you worry about with a more conservative social twist. They'll also preserve every iota of the previous admin's embellishments and expand on them. This was where GW went wrong. Where Gingrich's Contract went wrong and why so much of talk radio really doesn't like Republicans right now. It wouldn't surprise me at all if they kept Obamacare as a campaign issue with small legislative tweaks so they can say "we tried" every time they ran for re-election.

There is, in short, a revolution in the Republican Party, between the more libertarian and TEA elements and the establishment types you rightly fear.

Bundy
Free speech should be exercised and respected by all.

By the way. Liberals = conservatives = democrats = republicans = Pile of Shi...

so, I could call you any type of pervert imaginable and have it printed in the local paper, and you would be just fine with that? there are limits to everything, and that as well should be respected.

theMediator
reply to post by darkbake

 

The thing is, conservatives really don't understand liberal thinking at all.

Hence, they do their best to grasp liberal thinking with false generalization.
Even a popular anti-progressive thread today clearly shows this.

One could say the same thing about every leftist thread...that "progressives" stifle speech they disagree with. Meh, perhaps it is part of the human condition, but to say that the American left is entirely about free speech and debate and tolerance of opinions is laughable.

reply to post by jimmyx


There should be limits, but those should not be imposed by law. It used to be that decent people understood the notions of common decency and respect. You shouldn't seek to call him whatever kind of pervert you want, and he extend the same courtesy.

Understand I am not talking about disagreement or expressing views that disagree. Too often these days, expressing a view that disagrees with someone else, especially if we're talking about social issues, is considered "hate" even if it's not.

freedom of speech is a crock and everyone knows it. you can't use freedom of speech to harm someone by telling a lie. you can't use freedom of speech to plagiarize. try using vulgar and profane speech in front of schoolchildren or cops. try using the phrase "I might be carrying a bomb" in an airport or governmental building

ketsuko
reply to post by jimmyx

 

There should be limits, but those should not be imposed by law. It used to be that decent people understood the notions of common decency and respect. You shouldn't seek to call him whatever kind of pervert you want, and he extend the same courtesy.

Understand I am not talking about disagreement or expressing views that disagree. Too often these days, expressing a view that disagrees with someone else, especially if we're talking about social issues, is considered "hate" even if it's not.

well of course limits SHOULDN'T be imposed by law....but a lot of the times, "speech" ends up in real-life creating damage, that's why slander laws were imposed. as with 99% of all laws, there are real victims. if one feels so deprived of their liberties due to the passage of some law....the best place to start doing research, is at the beginning of that laws formation. the reasons, arguments, counter-arguments, victims, etc...they all play a part in deciding the validity of the law imposed.