• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Effort to Remove Marjorie Taylor Greene From Ballot Can Proceed, Judge Says

Slartibartfast

Jesus loves you.
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
71,668
Reaction score
58,042
Location
NE Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal

I don't have an opinion yet, but it certainly is an interesting development.
Yeah, NYT is behind a paywall for me. MTG has no business being near public office, but if we support taking the people's voice away, then we're no better than Republicans. They voted for her, they should be stuck with her.
 
Yeah, NYT is behind a paywall for me. MTG has no business being near public office, but if we support taking the people's voice away, then we're no better than Republicans. They voted for her, they should be stuck with her.
But you do support taking people’s voices away. That is what the campaign against the Citizens United decision is all about. The same can be said for the defense of biased content moderation policies from big tech firms like Twitter and Facebook. As a general, though not exclusive, rule cancel culture is more a creation of the left than the right as our colleges and universities seem to prove on an almost weekly basis.

Don’t like an opinion? Your side’s first reaction is typically to find a way to silence it.
 
But you do support taking people’s voices away. That is what the campaign against the Citizens United decision is all about. The same can be said for the defense of biased content moderation policies from big tech firms like Twitter and Facebook. As a general, though not exclusive, rule cancel culture is more a creation of the left than the right as our colleges and universities seem to prove on an almost weekly basis.

Don’t like an opinion? Your side’s first reaction is typically to find a way to silence it.
Hell, they're usually the first side to draw blood as well.
 

I don't have an opinion yet, but it certainly is an interesting development.
I have an opinion. MTG and anyone else loudly supporting the insurrection should be immediately disqualified from running for office. I'm talking all office. They shouldn't be allowed to run for dog catcher.
 
Yeah, NYT is behind a paywall for me. MTG has no business being near public office, but if we support taking the people's voice away, then we're no better than Republicans. They voted for her, they should be stuck with her.
Freedom of speech to me does not include attempts to subvert the constitution which she took an oath to defend. To me her speech is closer to hate speech than anything else bordering on suggesting violence. The same goes for any hate group. In my wildest imaginings I cannot believe the founding fathers would think "jews will not replace us" is an acceptable form of free speech. When a person or a group descends into hate speech, in my opinion they've crossed the line of decency. We don't need hate speech protected in my opinion.
 
But you do support taking people’s voices away. That is what the campaign against the Citizens United decision is all about. The same can be said for the defense of biased content moderation policies from big tech firms like Twitter and Facebook. As a general, though not exclusive, rule cancel culture is more a creation of the left than the right as our colleges and universities seem to prove on an almost weekly basis.

Don’t like an opinion? Your side’s first reaction is typically to find a way to silence it.
Citizens United did nothing more than allowing the bribing of our government to happen out in the open. If I give a dollar to your campaign and mr. koch gives you a million, whose voice are you hearing?
 

Here's a different article

Pretty clever argument, but unlikely to succeed. MTJ didnt do anything besides speak, and was not convicted of any insurrection or rebellion. A small group of people who she wasnt even a part of, trespassing in congress, is not civil war. On the other hand this could be used against the squad who have numerous times given comfort to enemies of the US. But again, that would be ridiculous. Speech isnt insurrection.
 
Citizens United did nothing more than allowing the bribing of our government to happen out in the open. If I give a dollar to your campaign and mr. koch gives you a million, whose voice are you hearing?
The opposition to CU is about more than governing direct donations to candidates. The kind of regulations some would impose (and the CU decision prevents) would, for example, ban Koch from funding and publishing a documentary critical of Joe Biden in an election year. Do you favor silencing Koch in that way?
 
But you do support taking people’s voices away. That is what the campaign against the Citizens United decision is all about. The same can be said for the defense of biased content moderation policies from big tech firms like Twitter and Facebook. As a general, though not exclusive, rule cancel culture is more a creation of the left than the right as our colleges and universities seem to prove on an almost weekly basis.

Don’t like an opinion? Your side’s first reaction is typically to find a way to silence it.
Something, something……..libraries and mathematics books. ……….as Florida and Texas try to out-doofus each other.
 
The opposition to CU is about more than governing direct donations to candidates. The kind of regulations some would impose (and the CU decision prevents) would, for example, ban Koch from funding and publishing a documentary critical of Joe Biden in an election year. Do you favor silencing Koch in that way?
I see, can he fund it and someone else 'publish' the documentary? What's with the silencing bit? By not allowing any individual or corporation to give more than say two thousand dollars they are being silenced?
 
I don't have an opinion yet, but it certainly is an interesting development.

If Republicans were smart, she never would have thought for one second about possibly running for office in the first place. It amazes me the most evil woman to ever work there was not impeached.
 
I see, can he fund it and someone else 'publish' the documentary? What's with the silencing bit? By not allowing any individual or corporation to give more than say two thousand dollars they are being silenced?
Please answer the question. Would you or would you not support a ban on such a documentary?
 
Choosing which texts to use in a public school system is not an act of censorship, no matter how you spin it.
You didn’t mention “censorship” in the post I replied to. You did mention cancel culture. Those two are not synonomous.
 
You didn’t mention “censorship” in the post I replied to. You did mention cancel culture. Those two are not synonomous.
It is also not cancel culture. Nothing in those laws attempts to silence those books' authors or prevent them from speaking or writing about their textbooks.
 
See post #19.
#19 doesn't make your case as it doesn't address the fact that textbooks are being passed up in order to withhold cultural information that is deemed politically unacceptable.
 
It is also not cancel culture. Nothing in those laws attempts to silence those books' authors or prevent them from speaking or writing about their textbooks.
The banning of books is certainly cancel culture as it is used today. Can you provide an example of what cc is to your argument?
 
Back
Top Bottom