Unethical Quote Of The Month: Hillary Clinton On Government Control Of Non-Conforming Viewpoints

mind-control-tests

“I believe that we need a more thoughtful conversation, we cannot let a minority of people — and that’s what it is, it is a minority of people — hold a viewpoint that terrorizes the majority of people.”

—-Hillary Clinton, forcefully inserting her leg in her mouth up to the knee during a CNN town hall as she talked about gun control, and, apparently, the new Democratic-progressive goal of government censorship of words, thoughts and beliefs.

Yup, Hillary really said that we cannot allow a minority to hold viewpoints the majority objects to. Oh, I know: she just said “terrorizes.” But if you can stop people from holding terrorizing viewpoints, there will  no longer be any prohibitions on barring other viewpoints that “the majority” believes are unwise.  This is the progressive paradise, I guess: all dissenting thoughts, opinions and viewpoints banished. I can almost feel the electroshock treatments now.

This is just a gaffe, right? I doubt it. I don’t think someone committed to free speech, open discourse, liberty and pluralism makes such a gaffe. The Left has been working over-time to suppress opposing opinion, dissent and non-conforming views for much of this President’s administration. Why should we believe this is a mistake?

Hillary will, and should, have this quote shaken in front of her face from now on. It is disgraceful, and terrifying (but I’m probably not part of Hillary’s “majority,” so what terrifies me doesn’t matter) for a former U.S. Senator and Secretary of State to assert such an un-American sentiment.

And immediately, the news media has begun trying to clean up the mess. The Huffington Post, realizing most people read headlines, not full posts, titled its report this way:

“Hillary Clinton On Gun Control: We Can’t Let ‘A Minority Of People’ Terrorize The Majority”

That is, you will notice, a lie. That is not what she said, and it is not up to journalists to decide for us what she “meant.” She said, very specifically, “holding viewpoints” is what we cannot permit, although the Constitution and a long line of Supreme Court cases says quite specifically that viewpoints are exactly what the government must permit. Later she said,

“I don’t think any parent, any person, should have to fear about their child going to school or going to college because someone, for whatever reasons — psychological, emotional, political, ideological, whatever it means — could possibly enter that school property with an automatic weapon and murder innocent children, students, teachers.”

This is less totalitarian, arguably, but dumber. “Could possibly” enter that school? I guess we have to lock them up, then, right, Mrs. Clinton? Can’t take any chances.

_____________________________

Pointer: Democratic Underground

 

 

46 thoughts on “Unethical Quote Of The Month: Hillary Clinton On Government Control Of Non-Conforming Viewpoints

  1. “She said, very specifically, “holding viewpoints” is what we cannot permit, although the Constitution and a long line of Supreme Court cases says quite specifically that viewpoints are exactly what the government must permit.”

    More important than because the Supreme Court says so and the Constitution says so, because it is imperative in any free society that values the individual to permit.

  2. Dystopian thought of the day:

    It’s all fine Jack. The push in gun control is primarily mentally health related. The health care industry having been placed essentially under federal control, it’s only a matter of time before certain political viewpoints are deemed the result of mental illness. Then in a generation our hospitals will be convenient works-around for courts and prisons. Just deem certain viewpoints to be illnesses, which doctors (pseudo-judges) can diagnose (pseudo-conviction) and send you to a mental health facility (pseudo-prison)

    • My God, Tex…I hadn’t even thought in that direction. Isn’t that what the Soviet Union tried with some of it’s major dissidents, an insane asylum? Is that what conservatives have to look forward to? We are truly doomed.

      • Don’t panic yet, it’s just dystopian prognostication. But the infrastructure exists and the leftists have demonstrated a penchant for not even considering legitimate, the views of non leftists. They have an entire media industry from Hollywood to the news agencies rooting for them and subtly vilifying and ostracizing right wing opinions.

        But for that worse case scenario to materialize, through gradualism, it would be a generation– barring an awakening (that isn’t going to happen, since the educational system is firmly in the grasp of the left).

        • Sadly, you are absolutely correct. Hitler once said “Give me a generation of the children and Germany will be mine.” Unfortunately, we have given the liberals a bit more than a generation of our children.

          • Many have already made this connection. Nor have they done so without reason. When the federal government is, in fact, in control of all medical resources and is as free from oversight as it already is, what is to stop them from a Soviet-style “psychiatric hospital” system with which to cow, defame or imprison those whose activities are deemed illiberal? The power of coercion already inherent in the federal government today is chilling. Nationalized health care, under the political control of committed leftists, would prove overwhelming.

  3. *Brave New World* and *1984* is here, at least in Hillary’s mind. I was depressed to see on Amazon that her new book has been dubbed as a “best new book” and sales are brisk. Could it be that the U.S. population is getting dumber and dumber?

  4. It’s telling that there is less and less push back on this kind of statement. I can’t imagine anyone even a liberal getting away with a statement so full of totalitarian meaning 6 years ago. There isn’t even a pretense of a nod to the constitution. More and more political backroom statements are making it to the public and no one seems to care. (Unless a conservative razzed someone in college, or hunts in Alaska.)

  5. Words have meanings and unless there’s a colossal Freudian slip people mean exactly what they say. And since there will be no more of a certain one saying horrifically,absurd and offensive to the max things here,I am happy to be back. Hopefully I will encounter tgt who although can be brutal is not so gratuitously…sort of.

  6. So was the civil rights effort to change American viewpoints, to change antiquated and incorrect ideologies, totalitarian? Was it oppressive to free speech and thought to educate people into not thinking we should hang niggers because, well, they’re not human, not worth living? Was it a viewpoint we should have never tried to eliminate?

    Is religious, fundamental radicalism that preaches death to Americans something we should not try to fix?

    Should it be okay to rape little girls because it ain’t right that the government is in the rapist’s business? Because laws against fucking little girls infringe upon the rights of the rapist to think it’s acceptable behavior.

    I should surely think not.

    I will always allow for my being wrong; but I do not believe Mrs. Clinton is telling people what to think, nor telling people they cannot think what they do about guns, ammo, or the Bill of Rights. What she, the left, , the right, and common sense gun-owners are suggesting is that we have antiquated ideals still lingering around and inhibiting the safety of a new-millennium population. This is no longer the wild west, and it’s certainly not the wild frontier. No one is suggesting a revocation of guns. Just smarter use of them, smarter distribution.

    For example: I can sell a fifteen-year-old an AR-15, out in the open, at a Taco Bell parking lot, for cash; and it’s completely legal. No background check for a criminal record; no psych eval into his teenage, angst and hatred filled mind; no question of his intent. That’s not a loophole to protect if one wants safer neighborhoods, is it? It behooves all of us to eliminate that kind of commercial endeavor, doesn’t it?

    Support the free-market all you want; that shit’s just wrong.

    It’s as wrong as selling cigarettes and booze to minors, poisons to crazy ladies, drugs to addicts, or knives to schizophrenics. As free as we’d like to ideally believe we are to practice whatever we want, in the end, that free-for-all mentality is not always the safest course.

    Thus we have laws. And our laws are shaped by the majority opinion. Same as our social rules. However, thanks to our country’s documents, we have the ability to say, “Okay, let’s start with this ban on this thing. Over time, if we no longer need, and have found a different solution, we can lift it.” We do it all the time.

    That’s why it’s cool to let thinking change. To imagine ourselves fluid enough to appreciate guns, but respect them enough to care who has them. it’s cool to think any way you want, but your actions are the result of it. If you are angry and beat your children and your wife, perhaps it’s not cool to let you keep thinking that way. So we offer counseling.

    If it is your belief that aliens are coming to get you, that’s fine. But because your kidnapping people’s children and hiding them in the basement to keep them safe, we’re gonna have a jar of pretty pills we need you to take. Why? because it will forever alter your thinking.

    We condone ADHD meds for kids because they think wrong, we condone Bibles for heathens because they think like sinners, we condone marketing ever.damn.day that does more to subversively control thinking than anything else today.

    But tell anyone that thinking the 2nd amendment is a blank check is wrong, and oh no, you’ve crossed the line.

    It is not okay anymore to beat faggots to death in back alleys because we think God doesn’t like them;it is no longer okay to believe women should never be able to vote or work; and it is not correct thinking that a gun in the hands of every American is smart.

    But beyond the gun issue, can we honestly say that what she’s proposing here has not been done before? Can we honestly claim to not have benefited from this type of preventative action?

    No. Our hospitals, restaurants, schools, and freeways are just that much safer we changed our thinking, then shaped it with centuries of right and left action. It is not a one-sided effort to change or stop thought. It is as bipartisan as raising taxes.

    So, I’m sorry, but I find it hilarious when people want to dump all over the “left” and accuse “liberals” of being far-reaching when their work has proven useful to a common good. Now surely there are those who feel seat belt and incest legislation is still an imposition, but c’mon, do grown-ups really think this way?

    Are we so jaded to our pseudo-causes that we can no longer think beyond our selfishness? What are we really afraid of losing if we are generally legit in the way we lead our daily lives? If new laws do not take our guns away or restrict us from their use any more than now, why push so hard against them?

    Why is it okay for tantrum thinking to jeopardize the safety of everyone, but not okay for pragmatism to promote the safety of the same?

    • I like your screen name.

      Since you don’t appear to comprehend the difference between not allowing points of view—which requires government action punishing them—-and making laws and building cultural norms that encourage and reward beneficial actions, which is not thought unless you are Marvel Girl or Professor X, I’m not sure how much time I should waste on you. Enforcing thought conformity is Orwellian and totalitarian in every way.

      Paragraph #1 is a mis-characterization of the Civil Rights movement. Citizens can think whatever they like. The movement was not about what people THINK. They are free to want to lynch anyone, and free to call anyone niggers if they are so hateful and boorish. But they have still to act according to the law. The Civil Rights movement was about creating a consensus about conduct.

      #2 is a question, and the answer is, under the Bill of Rights, NO. Read the First Amendment.

      #3 is about conduct, which is irrelevant to the post. (That’s the part you don’t get.)

      This: “I do not believe Mrs. Clinton is telling people what to think, nor telling people they cannot think what they do about guns, ammo, or the Bill of Rights” means that you don’t think Clinton knows what she’s saying. Because that is EXACTLY what she said, and I presume when politicians say something, they intend what comes out of their mouths. Is she an inarticulate idiot, or a fascist? You decide.

      From then on, your comment is gonzo gibberish. Are you saying that the majority should be able to declare minority views insane, and drug the non-conforming? Indoctrinate them?? Soviet SOP! The rest is all straw men…nobody seriously advocates NO regulations of firearms, or a Second Amendment “blank check”…and non-ethical rationalizations: I don’t care if “it’s done all the time”—that’s no argument at all.

      Then you sink to “the ends justifies the means.” The U.S. Constitution exists precisely to reject your kind of thinking, and the horror those who think like you have brought to every continent. Talk about terrorizing. No wonder you approve of Hillary’s non-democratic rhetoric: you are an autocrat at least, a totalitarian probably, and maybe a fascist to boot. Either dangerous, or seriously confused. By the end, you are talking about seat belts, which has nothing whatsoever to do with the topic at hand. Seat belts were a minority idea, debated, and finally won over public opinion because of good arguments and common sense—not because some self-annointed autocrat decided it was the way to go, and opposing views had to be suppressed, punished, and not allowed. If teh majority had acted like Hillary recommends, the seat belt crowd would have been sent to the Gulag.

      You have provided a perfect example of the vile anti-democratic and arrogant approach to public policy that makes so many modern progressives repugnant even when their ideas have merit. Thanks for that. I may reprint your post, kind of like the “I Love Lucy” episode when her terrible book was bought by a publisher so he could put it in a writing do’s and don’t’s book under “Don’t Let This Happen To You!”

      You validate the worst fears of the most paranoid conservatives, and of every literate patriot—including Mr. Mason and Mr Madison.

      But as offensive as your views are, I would never say we shouldn’t LET you hold them.

      • Yes, we don’t tell people how to think, but, as you know — once we start punishing certain actions (like discrimination), it DOES end up changing the way people think. Racism is a great example. Of course it is still a problem, but we have fewer percentage of bigots today then we did 50 years ago because of a nationwide campaign (including legislation) telling people that discrimination not only is wrong, but it can have legal ramifications. If actions are stopped, then thinking starts to change over generations. So now you have a whole group of people who don’t discriminate not because they fear their actions will be punished, but because they don’t think that way in the first place.

        Most liberals don’t want to see gun ownership go away — we want to see irresponsible gun ownership go away. It’s an important distinction, and I don’t think it’s wrong for any leader to encourage society to (gasp!) advocate for responsible gun control.

        I don’t like it when this blog focuses a little too much on semantics. I think you understood what modernidiot was trying to convey but you chose to rip apart his post because of word choice.

        • Yes and your insistence that semantics isn’t all that important is why you tolerate politicians getting away with saying something like what Hillary said with an obvious meaning and claiming “its not a big deal what she said”.

          You’re an enabler.

          • I wasn’t defending Hillary — I was defending ModernIdiot. I have never voted for Hillary, and hope to have some options in the upcoming election cycle.

            • You defended ModernIdiot’s defense which is based off a relaxation of semantical standards. If you defended that, then you must agree that an interpretation of Hillary’s comment that flies in the face of self-evident verbiage, therefore, vicariously you defended Hillary.

        • Most liberals don’t want to see gun ownership go away — we want to see irresponsible gun ownership go away. It’s an important distinction, . . . .

          . . . and one that, if literally true, would lead inevitably to the situation where “most liberals” are card-carrying members of the N.R.A.

          A =>B ; ~B ; Therefore: ~A Q.E.D.

          –Dwayne

        • Astonishingly Wrong. And if you accept all of those rationalizations —“can we honestly say that what she’s proposing here has not been done before? Can we honestly claim to not have benefited from this type of preventative action?-–as justifications to restrict speech and thought, you are as dangerous as he is. The idea that points of view should be “fixed” is where the civil rights movement, the gun control movement, and the gay rights movement went into anti-democratic places that make an automatic ally like me a critic. This is at the core of the horrible polarization today.

          You seriously can’t see that? You seriously can’t see that when a major political figure seeking high office says that we can’t “let” a minority have different views that what Those Who Know What Is Best For All (like, yechh, the Clintons), that LEGITIMATELY sets off everything from ethics alarms to survival alarms to Holocaust alarms? That line could have been uttered by Adolf Hitler—I bet it was! Was he just misspeaking, Beth? It’s no big deal that this can come out of a presumptive Presidential candidate’s mouth without her thinking, and saying, “Yikes! That came out wrong!”..and clarifying and defusing it?

          Amazing! You trust a lying, manipulating, amoral, Machiavellian figure like Clinton to say she wants to prevent minority viewpoints, but assume she doesn’t mean it? Her “base”—you know, those who cheer Donald Sterling being fined 2 million dollars for what he said in his bedroom, those who really think Congress should be bullying a team owner into calling his businesss something it feels is “inoffensive” those who applaud big city mayors telling conservatives, Republicans or the owner of Chic-Fil-A to get out of their city,—Anatefka!—because there’s “no place” for people who think like them—you can bet THEY think she means it, because they mean it. My God, Beth, how can you ignore this ugly anti-American, anti-Constitutional, anti-liberty trend that is so screamingly obvious, and right under your nose?

          Remember, I’M the one who writes again and again about how laws strengthen ethical cultures. It’s funny to hear the anti-gun crowd citing that, because they officially ridicule the idea that legalizing drugs will undermine the position that using recreational drugs is irresponsible, harmful and wrong—do they believe in the power of laws and the state’s resolve to lead moral and ethical views, or not? But such laws focus on conduct, just as government must only seek to control conduct. Yes, thoughts lead to action—TOUGH. You can do anything about them until they do, other than argue, condemn and complain. Liberals like Idiot (that’s a nickname, not an insult) don’t believe that, because “fixing” points of view that get in the way has been “done before”—you know, like in the USSR, Red China, North Vietnam, and you-know-where. It’s not just “semantics,” Beth. It’s history. And the bones and ashes of people just like you who confidently said “Oh, you know they don’t mean that” are scattered all over Asia and Europe.

          [And as for this: “Most liberals don’t want to see gun ownership go away — we want to see irresponsible gun ownership go away. It’s an important distinction, and I don’t think it’s wrong for any leader to encourage society to (gasp!) advocate for responsible gun control.” Prove it. The rhetoric in the wake of Sandy Hook from media types like Piers Morgan, groups like Move-On and many Congress members doesn’t support your contention. Most liberals want to repeal the 2nd Amendment, because they way they want it interpreted, it makes no sense to have. And when nothing in the Constitution guarantees gun ownership, what’s the “majority” then?]

          • I’m not sure what you’re rambling about. I was talking about your critique of ModernIdiot — not Hillary. See what I wrote above to Tex — I’m not defending the Clintons, and no, I don’t believe in controlling speech. And no, most liberals don’t want to repeal the 2nd Amendment. You need to watch different programs as it is clouding your judgment. Piers Morgan? That’s who you’re pointing to as evidence as to what liberals want? Everyone thinks he is a hack and he has lost his job.

            Just about every liberal I know — i.e., people who you say want the second amendment repealed — actually own guns. So that will be challenging for them. Maybe you need to start coming to dinner parties at my house. I’m to the left of all of my lefty friends and none of them want to see the repeal of the second amendment.

            As to your point that thoughts lead to action, I wasn’t talking about anything of the sort. I was talking about the reverse — thoughts can change over time because certain conduct becomes outdated or viewed as morally or legally wrong.

            Let’s change the topic from guns, as you apparently start frothing at the mouth and shouting “Piers Morgan” a la “Stella!” I hope I’m not going out on a limb in saying that it is always wrong to stone a woman to death if accused of adultery. Always. It’s wrong to do it, and if someone does “think” that way in the United States, I would suggest that therapy and/or drugs are in order. I don’t think the State should order the therapy unless an actually stoning took place — but I sure hope a family member does. And if a candidate running for office somewhere in the Middle East where this still is happening says, “We need to change the way people think about this issue,” I think just about every American would hope that candidate wins office.

            Leaders can influence thought in a positive direction, even if they can’t police it. If you don’t agree with a candidate’s thoughts, don’t vote for him/her. Simple.

            • 1. I was referring to your defense of Modern Idiot’s statement and arguments, and they are just as I described them.
              2. Neat trick: You defended a post that was nothing but a defense of Hillary’s statement, yet were not defending Hillary’s statement.
              3. Idiot’s comment was worse than what Hillary said. By far. And less defensible.
              4. Beth, most liberals, like most conservative, are ignorant and not very bright…and don’t own guns. You and your friends prove nothing. Most women I know would be happy to ban guns “for the children.” You clearly didn’t listen to all the post-Sandy Hook testimony that I did. Piers was outspoken and obnoxious, but not an outlier.
              5. You’re a lawyer and so is Hillary. “We need to change the way people think about this issue” is nothing like “we can’t let the minority hold a viewpoint” the majority doesn’t like. You know better, and she ought to.

              • Let’s discuss in the context of issues that don’t have as much heat behind them : seat belt laws, helmet laws, compulsory education (whether at home, private, or public), drunk driving laws. If a candidate said, “I want to change how people think about these issues, rather than let a radical minority change these laws,” I would support that statement because I agree with it.

                Conversely, if a candidate took those SAME issues and advocated for their repeal, and made the same statement as above (just substitute “majority” for “minority”), I would respect his right to make that statement, but he wouldn’t get my vote. If he were elected to office, I assume that would become part of his agenda — and he would have every right to do so. Maybe he would be successful in shifting majority opinion — maybe not.

                I do think it is our leaders role to educate and guide the values of their constituents — which is why we try and elect ethical, intelligent individuals. But whether or not any leader, Republican or Democrat, can change how society “thinks” about any particular issue is decided by the history books. But they have every right to try as long as they don’t throw people in jail for disagreeing with them.

                This is consistent with all of my comments on this site. Case in point: Chik-fil-A: Emmanuel was wrong to try and ban the organization because he was effectively policing free speech. I do try and avoid that restaurant because of my own personal beliefs (although I admit that it has the best chicken sandwich around and if I am trapped in the Orlando airport I will happily eat there — personal convictions be damned).

                As for my defense of ModernIdiot — I should have been clear. My fault. I did agree with much of what he was saying, but not all of it. I was criticizing you for being a bit heavy-handed with him. You are a trained and talented debater — but that doesn’t mean you should crucify every person who disagrees with you or isn’t as careful with language just because you can. It was as if you were channeling Scott minus profanity. A lighter critique would have been more appropriate in my opinion — especially since he appears to be a new person here and seemed to put some thought into his response.

                • 1. I’ll accept that critique. I admit—there are some positions, and he was articulating several, that I think need to be rebutted in the most assertive terms and unequivocal terms.
                  2. This clarifies a lot. Thanks.
                  3. Again—changing how people think: that’s fine. That’s leadership. That’s persuasion. Saying we can’t let people have certain non-conforming viewpoints: completely different. That’s totalitarian, and I expect people like Hillary to be as aware of the difference as I am.

          • Republicans or the owner of Chic-Fil-A to get out of their city,—Anatefka!—because there’s “no place” for people who think like them—you can bet THEY think she means it, because they mean it. My God, Beth, how can you ignore this ugly anti-American, anti-Constitutional, anti-liberty trend that is so screamingly obvious, and right under your nose?

            Have you heard of the Scott Lively case?

            http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/02/03/the-painful-case-of-pastor-scott-lively-homophobe-to-the-world/

              • This is not a case where he is accused of organizing, planning, or preparing criminal violence in violation of the laws of Uganda (which of course is not protected by law, either here or Uganda).

                While it is true that Lively advocated “laws [in Uganda]
                that restrict the public promotion and display of homosexuality.”, which no jurisdiction in the U.S. could institute short of amending the United States Constitution, this advocacy enjoys the same degree of protection as advocating that Mexico continue to ban firearms and ammunition.

                and, of course, advocacy of foreign governments to adopt domestic policies could not possibly violate international law.

          • Jack – Great and bravo!

            I concur – I think we live in some fairly scary times right now. Optimistically, at least the so-called “progressives” are being open about how they really think. Before it was couched in the pretty rhetoric of liberalism. However, they really want absolute power and autocracy and they’re becoming far less shy about it. All those campus demonstrations this spring are evidence of that nature. Thankfully, those numbers seem to be small; it was just cowardly/compliant administrations who acquiesced to their demands.

            And I discovered a while ago that many of the “Left” have no consistency in their morality or ethics. They are merely reactionary – they really can’t see the connection between gun rights as a women’s safety issue, for example.

            And if anybody says you’re overreacting? I don’t think you are. This is right on – the attempt by small political powers to control the thoughts and actions of other humans led to the deaths of 100+ million people in the 20th century. And the socialists want to try it again. They simply say “oh, ignore that, if we try it again it will work this time, we promise.”

            Keep up the good work Jack. I think the people of the world are in for a fight. And it’s for survival. The stakes are the highest they have been in a while.

            • And I discovered a while ago that many of the “Left” have no consistency in their morality or ethics. They are merely reactionary – they really can’t see the connection between gun rights as a women’s safety issue, for example.

              the leftist leadership thinks that Stalin did not execute enough people in the U.S.S.R..

        • The rub is that “irresponsible gun ownership” is not the root problem that liberals make it out to be. Were not talking about legal but irresponsible owners accidentally shooting a school full of children. Were talking about deliberate acts of violence committed by mentally unstable individuals who simply dont care about the law.

          Explain how squeezing the rights of rights of Americans will somehow make these criminals less violent, or less unstable, or more respectful of the law (especially considering how few of these murders expect to outlive their crime).

          Rather than attacking the wrong group of people after these crimes, lets empower the right group: responsible concealed carry citizens. When seconds count, the police are minutes away. Gun free zones don’t stop guns but they do create target rich low resistance environments. For any number of legitimate reasons, lets make it easier, cheaper, and lawful for individuals with established good backgrounds (e.g. non-criminal, good credit, sound mental health) to carry where ever they go. You cant stop mental instability from rearing its head, no matter how aggressively you write laws. But you can restore the people’s ability to defend themselves and others.

          • This. Although, I think it’s a feature for many of the anti-gun crowd, not a bug. For some, it’s pure theoretical ideology. Some of them believe with enough community outreach and talking, that the gun problems will be solved.

            An interesting case study not often brought up by folks who believe in gun/self-defense rights is to look at the situation in northern Mexico. Mexico has strong anti-firearms laws…and the Cartels carry around military grade weapons. Meanwhile, the civilians are left in-between corrupt police and military personnel. That’s why the autodefensas is a huge thing – many of the people who defend themselves with guns get them from smuggling. Of course, without the means of self defense, the Mexicans not involved with the police or the Cartels get robbed, raped, murdered, enslaved.

            Wonder why that’s not brought up more?

    • Was it oppressive to free speech and thought to educate people into not thinking we should hang niggers because, well, they’re not human, not worth living? Was it a viewpoint we should have never tried to eliminate?

      We did not try to eliminate that viewpoint.

      Should it be okay to rape little girls because it ain’t right that the government is in the rapist’s business? Because laws against fucking little girls infringe upon the rights of the rapist to think it’s acceptable behavior.

      We are free to argue that men should get to fuck little girls whether or not they like it.

      We are also free to defend our legal, moral, and ethical traditions that say it is not okay to do such a deed.

      For example: I can sell a fifteen-year-old an AR-15, out in the open, at a Taco Bell parking lot, for cash; and it’s completely legal. No background check for a criminal record; no psych eval into his teenage, angst and hatred filled mind; no question of his intent. That’s not a loophole to protect if one wants safer neighborhoods, is it? It behooves all of us to eliminate that kind of commercial endeavor, doesn’t it?

      It is certainly better than selling them to a bunch of people whom dress in blue, break into people’s houses to look for drugs, and kill people in their beds.

      It is not okay anymore to beat faggots to death in back alleys because we think God doesn’t like them</blockquote
      It was never okay. Ancient Israel did not condone such things; it only subjected people to death if proven, in a courtt of law, to have committed sodomy. Those who did " beat faggots to death in back alleys " were subject to the death penalty.

      it is no longer okay to believe women should never be able to vote or work

      So you say.

      Some imams in Saudi Arabia say that ” women should never be able to vote or work”. they are experts in Islamic law. What makes you think you know more than they do?

      • “I can sell a fifteen-year-old an AR-15, out in the open, at a Taco Bell parking lot, for cash; and it’s completely legal. No background check for a criminal record; no psych eval into his teenage, angst and hatred filled mind; no question of his intent. That’s not a loophole to protect if one wants safer neighborhoods, is it? It behooves all of us to eliminate that kind of commercial endeavor, doesn’t it?”

        Except, I’m pretty sure that’s illegal in most states. The “gun show loophole” is largely a myth in most parts of the US – they still do background checks.

        Maybe in Vermont, which has the most lax gun purchasing restrictions in the US, but certainly not in most places.

        But, meh, easier to use platitudes than read and think I guess.

    • I guess that just about exemplifies the fervent, deceptive and dangerous rhetoric of the hard Left as well as anything I’ve seen. Notice that I don’t call for his imprisonment or his head! I wonder a what college he failed to learn the concepts of reality, rationality and a little common decency. Just about any of them, probably. What a paen to Periclean mob rule without a functional constitution to restrain the passions. Imagine the sort of world that Modern Idiot lives in and would inflict on us all.

  7. I believe that we need a more thoughtful conversation, we cannot let a minority of people — and that’s what it is, it is a minority of people — hold a viewpoint that terrorizes the majority of people

    And in the first half of the 20th century, the minority viewpoint was repealing mandatory racial segregation. I wonder what kind of people believed that particular viewpoint “terrorize[d] the majority of people”?

    • Great example, and the answer is “average Americans.” But they were obviously a BAD majority, Michael. This time it’s a GOOD majority. And good liberal knows the difference…

  8. I just saw this, I never new anything about it; this actually happened, HOLY SHIT!!!

    Yet another thing to add to the ever growing stink piles of reasons why I can’t vote for either Clinton or Trump.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.