Jump to content

 
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
darkblue

Bernie Sanders!

Recommended Posts

Spotted Dick. I remember that was the pudding that

Mrs. Bridges would serve when James came home

from somewhere. It was his favorite pudding. I laughed

at that name, and considering the reputation of English

cookery, it doesn't sound very appetizing, no matter

what one called it.

 

I noticed while watching The Apartment that Happy

Holidays was written on one of the bar mirrors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Baltimore Sun endorsed Hillary Clinton today. Here's an excerpt relevant to this Bernie Sanders thread:

 

"Senator Sanders captured the imagination of millions with his call for a "political revolution" aimed at upending a status quo they feel is stacked against them — a message that has resonated particularly strongly with young people who see him as a break from the politics of the past. Yet on closer inspection it's apparent that, despite their popular appeal, many of Mr. Sanders' spending, tax and health care plans — along with his proposals for making college free, reining in Wall Street and "breaking up" the big banks by presidential fiat — simply don't add up. They are in many respects as grandiose and vague as most of the ideas offered up by Donald Trump on the Republican side, and equally unworkable."

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Baltimore Sun endorsed Hillary Clinton today. Here's an excerpt relevant to this Bernie Sanders thread:

 

"Senator Sanders captured the imagination of millions with his call for a "political revolution" aimed at upending a status quo they feel is stacked against them — a message that has resonated particularly strongly with young people who see him as a break from the politics of the past. Yet on closer inspection it's apparent that, despite their popular appeal, many of Mr. Sanders' spending, tax and health care plans — along with his proposals for making college free, reining in Wall Street and "breaking up" the big banks by presidential fiat — simply don't add up. They are in many respects as grandiose and vague as most of the ideas offered up by Donald Trump on the Republican side, and equally unworkable."

 

BRAVO, Swithin!!!

 

THIS pretty much sums up MY feelings about Mr. Sanders, TOO!

 

Yeah, wouldn't it be lovely if "just by sheer force of will" people could make the world a better place? I know I OFTEN wish my OWN "force of will" could rid the world of all the freakin' religious fanatics in it. Aaaaah, but unfortunately THAT is ALSO just a freakin' pipe dream, huh!

 

(...and hell, even that OTHER "pipe dream" of mine, YOU know, getting rid of that REALLY stupid superfluous-u, seems just that TOO...yep, just another "pipe dream" of mine, ol' boy!!!) ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They think that everything they say should be agreed with by everyone - or it's equal to not being allowed to talk.

 

Just your everyday right-wing cry-baby stuff - nothing new about it.

This kind of limited mentality comes from spending the last few decades listening to Rush Limbaugh and Fox News. These people get to the place where they think that everybody must agree with them in order to be respected and that nobody has a right to disagree with you. If a person disagrees with, then you don't have to respect them.

 

Bill O'Reilly is a good example of someone that has no respect for not just opposing opinions but facts and objectivity.

 

And Rush Limbaugh is the kind of person who will attack you personally if you have a different opinion. That's Un- American, that's unconstitutional and that's downright ignorant.

 

Americans should be able to discuss any issue and give opposing opinions without resorting to personal attacks.

 

That's what freedom of speech means in the United States.

 

The United States Constitution and Declaration of Independence comes out of a movement in the seventeenth and eighteenth Century in France called the Enlightenment--Les Lumières. And that's one of the reasons that Thomas Jefferson spoke French so well and spent so much time in France because he was trying to absorb these ideas. His personal collection of French books was the beginning of the collection a French books in the Library of Congress.

**

**

 

French writer, philosopher, enlightenment activist Voltaire gave us the crux from which are concept of freedom of speech comes - - "I may not agree with what you say, but I defend to the death your right to say it.". **

**

 

Voltaire was also the man who said - - "the pen is mightier than the sword."**

 

 

The extreme right-wing in the United States reminds me of communists during the Cold War. They all had to repeat the party line, they all had to memorize the party line, and they couldn't be in the party unless they would adhere to a kind of mind control--the party line.

 

You can absolutely say that Hitler in Germany and Stalin in the Soviet Union were alike. Even though one was fascist and one was a communist. The Totalitarian mindset means that you're not allowed to think for yourself. It's totalitarianism and you're not allowed to have an individual thought-- other people have you programmed; it's not independent thinking. That's not freedom of speech.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Americans should be able to discuss any issue and give opposing opinions without resorting to personal attacks.

 

That's what freedom of speech means in the United States.

 

 

While I applaud the sentiment, Princess, I have to disagree about the second part. While treating others with civility and respect is a cornerstone of meaningful discourse, it isn't related to our Constitutional Freedom of Speech. A fundamental misunderstanding held by people on both the right and the left is that freedom of speech means that they can say what they want without being judged for it. That's not it at all. Freedom of Speech means the government cannot stop your speech (unless national security is threatened. There are always exceptions to our Constitutional rights). However, there is no protection from the consequences of your speech. If you say something judged by others as inflammatory or ignorant, you will be held accountable for it. You can lose your job over your speech, you can lose friends over your speech, you can get kicked to the couch for your speech.

 

You have the right to say what you want. But then you have to be prepared for the consequences of that speech. You can rightfully go to the town square and speak about why the white race is the best race. The government cannot stop you (within reason). But you can lose your job and be called out by others for being a racist if you decided to do so. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While I applaud the sentiment, Princess, I have to disagree about the second part. While treating others with civility and respect is a cornerstone of meaningful discourse, it isn't related to our Constitutional Freedom of Speech. A fundamental misunderstanding held by people on both the right and the left is that freedom of speech means that they can say what they want without being judged for it. That's not it at all. Freedom of Speech means the government cannot stop your speech (unless national security is threatened. There are always exceptions to our Constitutional rights). However, there is no protection from the consequences of your speech. If you say something judged by others as inflammatory or ignorant, you will be held accountable for it. You can lose your job over your speech, you can lose friends over your speech, you can get kicked to the couch for your speech.

 

 

 

You can't call your boss an uncompromising jughead and expect a raise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While I applaud the sentiment, Princess, I have to disagree about the second part. While treating others with civility and respect is a cornerstone of meaningful discourse, it isn't related to our Constitutional Freedom of Speech. A fundamental misunderstanding held by people on both the right and the left is that freedom of speech means that they can say what they want without being judged for it. That's not it at all. Freedom of Speech means the government cannot stop your speech (unless national security is threatened. There are always exceptions to our Constitutional rights). However, there is no protection from the consequences of your speech. If you say something judged by others as inflammatory or ignorant, you will be held accountable for it. You can lose your job over your speech, you can lose friends over your speech, you can get kicked to the couch for your speech.

 

You have the right to say what you want. But then you have to be prepared for the consequences of that speech. You can rightfully go to the town square and speak about why the white race is the best race. The government cannot stop you (within reason). But you can lose your job and be called out by others for being a racist if you decided to do so. 

 

Regarding getting fired;   legally this falls under employer \ employee relations.    Typically progressives have been on the side of the employee;  i.e.  a employer must have valid reasons to terminate an employee.    But lately progressives have been on the side of the employer;  e.g.   NFL players should be terminated if they have domestic violence charges (with some progressives saying one should be fired even if there is no criminal charges filed).

 

Then there are the speech cases like the one where ESPN fired Curt Schilling.    Many progressives support this firing but of course would object to ESPN firing someone because their hairstyle is too ethnic.

 

So it appears that both conservatives and progressives wish for some type of 'merit' criteria related to behaviors and speech outside the workplace and if an employer has a legal right to terminate or not.    Who decides this criteria?   In most cases it is the government.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anybody can be terminated from their employment at any time, for any reason, by their boss - just as long as it's not illegal (example: due to racism, sexism, disability).

To have protection against a "whim" firing, you must have a solid contract preventing such. This is where unions used to have great value - the contracts protected the union workers from unfair firings.

If you're not in a union, you generally have no protection whatsoever. The best you can hope for is suing for some extra separation pay, if you've received less than is fair.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can't call your boss an uncompromising jughead and expect a raise.

 

SURE ya can, Ham! I used to do this sort of thing ALL the time to some of my airlines bosses of whom I just couldn't muster any or little respect for their intelligence and/or leadership abilities.

 

Of course then again, I was a member of a union, and so possessed protection from most forms of managerial retaliation.

 

(...aaah, "Unions"...too bad the kids today out there in the workforce have no concept of such a thing...sure am glad I'm not one of 'em...it's GREAT bein' a Boomer, ya know!!!)

 

LOL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding getting fired;   legally this falls under employer \ employee relations.    Typically progressives have been on the side of the employee;  i.e.  a employer must have valid reasons to terminate an employee.    But lately progressives have been on the side of the employer;  e.g.   NFL players should be terminated if they have domestic violence charges (with some progressives saying one should be fired even if there is no criminal charges filed).

 

Then there are the speech cases like the one where ESPN fired Curt Schilling.    Many progressives support this firing but of course would object to ESPN firing someone because their hairstyle is too ethnic.

 

So it appears that both conservatives and progressives wish for some type of 'merit' criteria related to behaviors and speech outside the workplace and if an employer has a legal right to terminate or not.    Who decides this criteria?   In most cases it is the government.

 

In my opinion, it should all be spelled out in the initial employment contract an employee signs. If their employer has a code of conduct clause (and a copy of said code is signed off on by the employee), as well as dress code, then they have every right to fire anyone if those terms are broken. Even if the employer leaves things intentionally vague re:acceptable behavior, the employee must still abide by termination if they have signed off on the initial stipulations.

 

Getting fired was an extreme example, though, as there aren't a lot of cases of people fired solely based on speech. My point was simply that the Freedom of Speech guaranteed by the Constitution is not a protection from criticism, or reprecussions, of said speech.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In my opinion, it should all be spelled out in the initial employment contract an employee signs. If their employer has a code of conduct clause (and a copy of said code is signed off on by the employee), as well as dress code, then they have every right to fire anyone if those terms are broken. Even if the employer leaves things intentionally vague re:acceptable behavior, the employee must still abide by termination if they have signed off on the initial stipulations.

 

Getting fired was an extreme example, though, as there aren't a lot of cases of people fired solely based on speech. My point was simply that the Freedom of Speech guaranteed by the Constitution is not a protection from criticism, or reprecussions, of said speech.

 

I guess my point was that while historically progressives have tried to shield people from repercussions associated with free speech (here is another classic historical example;  a person trying to lobby fellow employees to join a union),   in recent years it is progressive that are demanding that employers fire employees over speech or behavior outside the workplace.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding getting fired;   legally this falls under employer \ employee relations.    Typically progressives have been on the side of the employee;  i.e.  a employer must have valid reasons to terminate an employee.    But lately progressives have been on the side of the employer;  e.g.   NFL players should be terminated if they have domestic violence charges (with some progressives saying one should be fired even if there is no criminal charges filed).

 

Then there are the speech cases like the one where ESPN fired Curt Schilling.    Many progressives support this firing but of course would object to ESPN firing someone because their hairstyle is too ethnic.

 

So it appears that both conservatives and progressives wish for some type of 'merit' criteria related to behaviors and speech outside the workplace and if an employer has a legal right to terminate or not.    Who decides this criteria?   In most cases it is the government.

 

Regarding Curt Schilling, he wasn't fired for just this one offense, but for a pattern of behavior.  It was apparently the last straw, after a lengthy series of offensive rants.  I don't know how he was able to keep his job for as long as he had.

 

http://deadspin.com/espn-fires-curt-schilling-who-finally-became-too-much-1772165466

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The U.S. Constitution says that "Congress shall make no law abridging freedom of speech." That doesn't mean that there aren't all kinds of places and situations where people can't just say what they want. If I say that a certain poster here is a bum, or a fool, I can be banned. If I say (at work) that my boss is a bum, or a fool, I can be fired.

 

If I say those things outside this forum, or outside my workplace, there probably wouldn't be repercussions, unless I was in a high-profile position; or it was sufficiently outrageous about my boss.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding Curt Schilling, he wasn't fired for just this one offense, but for a pattern of behavior.  It was apparently the last straw, after a lengthy series of offensive rants.  I don't know how he was able to keep his job for as long as he had.

 

 

 

 

Schilling is a major rear end and since his job was 'public facing'  the code of conduct for this type of job is different.  (in this regards I shouldn't have used this fool as an example).

 

But remember that 'back in the day' actors were blacklisted for political associations or for being gay or for other moral violations like living together without the benefit of marriage.    Of course progressive didn't agree with these practices.   Therefore we need to be careful we don't support the firing of folks just for their personal behaviors when said behaviors have no impact on their ability to do the job.

 

e.g. I couldn't support firing someone that doesn't have a public facing job just because they have confederate flag bummer stickers on their car.   (regardless of how offensive I find this).

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

The U.S. Constitution says that "Congress shall make no law abridging freedom of speech." That doesn't mean that there aren't all kinds of places and situations where people can't just say what they want. If I say that a certain poster here is a bum, or a fool, I can be banned. If I say (at work) that my boss is a bum, or a fool, I can be fired.

 

If I say those things outside this forum, or outside my workplace, there probably wouldn't be repercussions, unless I was in a high-profile position; or it was sufficiently outrageous about my boss.

 

Yeah, well, as I said down there earlier Swithin, that would be IF you don't have a union to back ya once you tell off the boss for bein' such a freakin' "bum" or "fool", anyway.

 

(...what...don't ya read any of my stuff around here anymore or somethin'?!!!) ;)

 

LOL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

e.g. I couldn't support firing someone that doesn't have a public facing job just because they have confederate flag bummer stickers on their car.   (regardless of how offensive I find this).

 

I know that was probably a typo, but it made me laugh. I AM bummed out when I see a Confederate flag sticker.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OH, and btw dark ol' buddy...

 

You DO know what with all this bellyachin' of yours about poor little Bernie "not getttin' enough media time" and thus the "reason" for his apparent recent "lack of support among The People", that you're startin' to sound JUST like THIS airhead HERE...

 

2994593998_66e6cc582b_o.jpg

 

...and her little "Lamestream Media" crap she spouts all the time, now DONCHA?!!!

 

LOL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While I applaud the sentiment, Princess, I have to disagree about the second part. While treating others with civility and respect is a cornerstone of meaningful discourse, it isn't related to our Constitutional Freedom of Speech. A fundamental misunderstanding held by people on both the right and the left is that freedom of speech means that they can say what they want without being judged for it. That's not it at all. Freedom of Speech means the government cannot stop your speech (unless national security is threatened. There are always exceptions to our Constitutional rights). However, there is no protection from the consequences of your speech. If you say something judged by others as inflammatory or ignorant, you will be held accountable for it. You can lose your job over your speech, you can lose friends over your speech, you can get kicked to the couch for your speech.

 

You have the right to say what you want. But then you have to be prepared for the consequences of that speech. You can rightfully go to the town square and speak about why the white race is the best race. The government cannot stop you (within reason). But you can lose your job and be called out by others for being a racist if you decided to do so.

Lawrence,

 

 

I suppose I didn't make myself clear enough. I'm well aware that when you utilize your freedom of speech you can be judged for what you say.

 

I'm also well aware if you say something that offends some people, they may turn against you or try to seek revenge.

 

But that doesn't stop people who have the guts to get up and say what they believe.

 

Aside from falsely yelling fire in a crowded movie theater or inciting a riot or threatening to break a law or treason ect., our freedom of speech remains intact.

 

My belief is simply and legally, I have the right to say anything I feel like saying and let the chips fall where they may.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/26/2016 at 3:35 PM, Dargo said:

OH, and btw dark ol' buddy...

You DO know what with all this bellyachin' of yours about poor little Bernie "not getttin' enough media time" and thus the "reason" for his apparent recent "lack of support among The People", that you're startin' to sound JUST like THIS airhead HERE...and her little "Lamestream Media" crap she spouts all the time, now DONCHA?!!!

You really know how to hurt a guy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lawrence,

 

 

I suppose I didn't make myself clear enough. I'm well aware that when you utilize your freedom of speech you can be judged for what you say.

 

I'm also well aware if you say something that offends some people, they may turn against you or try to seek revenge.

 

But that doesn't stop people who have the guts to get up and say what they believe.

 

Aside from falsely yelling fire in a crowded movie theater or inciting a riot or threatening to break a law or treason ect., our freedom of speech remains intact.

 

My belief is simply and legally, I have the right to say anything I feel like saying and let the chips fall where they may.

 

I meant no offense to you, Princess, as I'm sure you know. I just read your previous statement as saying that Freedom of Speech protected the speaker from personal attacks by those offended by said speech. Apologies if I misunderstood.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"The poll of Americans between the ages of 18 and 29 finds that Sanders is by far the most popular presidential candidate among the youngest voters.

 

He's not moving a party to the left. He's moving a generation to the left," Della Volpe said of the senator from Vermont. "Whether or not he's winning or losing, it's really that he's impacting the way in which a generation — the largest generation in the history of America — thinks about politics."

 

...Sanders was the clear favorite of young people. Fifty-four percent said they had a favorable view of him, and 31 percent said they had an unfavorable view. With respect to Hillary Clinton, 53 percent had an unfavorable view, and 37 percent said their views of the former secretary of state were favorable.

 

Millennials' opinions of Donald Trump, by contrast, are decisively negative. Seventy-four percent said they view the Republican front-runner unfavorably, including 57 percent of young Republicans

 

...there is no question that there is a significant part of the electorate that he (Sanders) has woken up and is organizing,"

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/04/25/bernie-sanders-is-profoundly-changing-how-millennials-think-about-politics-poll-shows/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

...there is no question that there is a significant part of the electorate that he (Sanders) has woken up and is organizing,"

 

 

 

Yeah, well, IF and WHEN he can keep 'em off their damn cellphones and stop all that damn texting they do(ESPECIALLY while they're behind the wheel of a freakin' car), THAT'S when I'll admit the guy has "woken up" those damn wet-behind-the-ears Millennials, dude!!!

 

;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lawrence,

 

 

I suppose I didn't make myself clear enough. I'm well aware that when you utilize your freedom of speech you can be judged for what you say.

 

I'm also well aware if you say something that offends some people, they may turn against you or try to seek revenge.

 

But that doesn't stop people who have the guts to get up and say what they believe.

 

Aside from falsely yelling fire in a crowded movie theater or inciting a riot or threatening to break a law or treason ect., our freedom of speech remains intact.

 

My belief is simply and legally, I have the right to say anything I feel like saying and let the chips fall where they may.

 

Maybe I misunderstand your statement but to me there is a conflict between saying 'legally' and 'let the chips fall where they may'.  

I.e.  if those chips result in legal punishment then that speech wasn't legal by definition and therefore NOT protected speech.

 

 e.g. Here in CA there is a major debate about what can and cannot be said by teachers and students at state run universities.    The main bone of contention is related to Israel.   Jewish support groups claim that saying something like the building of settlements in occupied terrorized is illegal (as defined by the U.N.) is anti-Semitic and a hate crime and one can be disciplined for doing so (fired, suspended,  losing a scholarship, etc...).    Those are some very heavy chips that fall on anyone that happens to disagree with Israeli government policy.  

 

Now this policy has NOT been implemented YET.   It keeps getting passed but then delayed.    To me such a policy should be illegal and we may need to have the Supreme Court say so. 

 

There is always some movement or group that tries to deny our first amendment rights and it isn't only right wringers that are trying to suppress something sexual like porn.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

© 2020 Turner Classic Movies Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
×
×
  • Create New...