Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News

Drudge Retort

User Info

gtbritishskull

Subscribe to gtbritishskull's blog Subscribe

Menu

Special Features

Comments

Uh huh. Or maybe they fostered a country where free speech is of paramount importance. And free speech does have its negative side too, as does systems of government that are anti-free speech. Unfortunately, it seems Liberals have to actually change America to be anti-free speech in order to find out what those negatives are. They love to spout all the good things about other countries but can't be bothered to look at the negative repercussions of the path they have put America on.
I mean, Dems want to be free to encourage and support looting, rioting and killing. But they don't want Cons to be free to do it. Picking and choosing the free speech you want others to follow only makes you a Dictator. Just saying.

#2 | POSTED BY HUMTAKE

See... this is the problem with conservatives... they don't actually understand the constitution at all. What about anything that is said here do YOU thinks violates the constitutionally protected right to free speech? Because, as far as I can tell, there is nothing here that is asking the GOVERNMENT to suppress this speech.

You are correct... the Republican Party has EVERY RIGHT to promote racism. They can even change their name to be the "Racism Party" if they want to. But, if they do not support those views (this is completely hypothetical, because it really looks like the Republican Party does support those views) then they have every right to speak out and condemn them. As well as the right to associate, or in this case not associate, with people who (again, hypothetically) do not conform to the values of their organization.

I did not see you get all whiny and judgmental when the Republican Party decided to kick out Liz Cheney for HER speech and association, but when SHE says that they should do that to racists, suddenly it is a big deal to you.

So, to recap... this does not violate ANYONE's right to free speech. And, even if you wanted to make an argument it did, it is very clear that you only care about preserving the "free speech" of racists and Trumpers. That when other people's free speech is violated, you stay quiet.

-Margaret Sanger, famous eugenist and racist

#57 | POSTED BY EBERLY

Going with the "guilt by association" logical fallacy this time. Strong choice. I appreciate the variety.

"Jack is a crooked salesman. Jack proposes monorail. Therefore, monorail is folly."

;)

@#6 ... Subsidize the rich, privatize the profits. ...
This is what Mr Musk seems to be going for.

#8 | POSTED BY LAMPLIGHTER

The main argument of your comment seems to be, well it's legal, therefore it is OK.
If you had been paying attention, you would have noticed that the comments were more about what the laws prescribe.
Do try harder to keep up. The argument in your comment is weak (I'm being kind).

#11 | POSTED BY LAMPLIGHTER

#17 how does one "prescribe" a law?
And I don't think anyone is debating lawfulness.
Just dignity and integrity.

#20 | POSTED BY JPW

--- if I know.

Apparently you are having trouble "keeping up" as well?

So... what is the "dignity" and "integrity" that you are debating? Because it seems to me that you are talking about the argument that I made that Lamp dismissed... whether it shows a lack of "integrity" for someone to take advantage of legal subsidies at the same time as they publicly oppose them. Just like the Democratic party accepts unlimited donations while saying that should not be allowed. Or while Warren Buffett paid only the taxes he owed (and at a lower rate than his secretary) at the same time as he was advocating for a "Millionaire's Tax".

Now I am sure you could talk about "dignity and integrity" towards other things Musk has done, but that seems irrelevant to this thread.

But, that hasn't stopped anyone else. Joe apparently thinks that because Musk is a "known liar and an obvious troll" that Lamp and other people on this thread are justified in assigning positions to him (and just childish name calling) without any evidence.

What we SHOULD be debating is lawfulness. And changing whether that is the case. If you want to get rid of subsidies, you should do so. If Musk were lobbying on behalf of keeping subsidies I would agree to these accusations of hypocrisy. But I have seen ZERO evidence that he has tried to influence government to provide him or his companies more subsidies.

Boeing prefers that the taxpayers overspend for the new AF Ones - were not used to dealing with a businessman, much to their chagrin.

#5 | POSTED BY MSGT

You must not be a businessman. A real businessman realizes that you are reliant on your customers and your vendors. That it is not just about getting the best possible "deal" but that you have to make sure that everyone makes money as well for it to be sustainable. Or else you will be looking for new customers and vendors next week/month/year etc. A real businessman adds value, doesn't have to rely on screwing everyone else out of the value that they add.

The same thing happens with employees. Conservative "businessmen" try to pay their employees as little as possible, treat them like adversaries instead of partners. Are focused on extracting as much value as possible from the employees, instead of ensuring that all parties are fairly compensated for the value they add. Which ends up with the good employees leaving to actually well run companies, and all that is left is the crappy employees. What you end up with is a zero sum game, with these conservative businesses full of employees who provide very limited value, and the business focused on extracting as much value as possible from that limited pool instead of actually adding value by figuring out how to make that pool bigger.

That is why the big successful companies, the ones that are actually growing and innovating, are considered "liberal" ones. While the conservative ones rely on their bought and paid for Republican Representatives to continue to feed them corporate welfare to stay alive.

I can't say this is the wrong thing.

If my kid had broken the law like this I would be happy for them to get this experience (I realize I am making assumptions about what the actual experience for the kid was).

But, my kids are white. I am not worried that they would get shot, or beat up, or end up in jail with charges, in the process. Which is the main issue. I think this is good if the parents approve. Bad if it makes the parents terrified, feel like they are not in control or that it could spiral out of control.

I think due to the fact that the kid was not put in handcuffs, was not charged, and was taken home to talk to the parents makes me think that the officers here were trying to do the right thing. That their intentions were probably correct. Whether it actually WAS a right thing to do is another question.

And, all these people claiming that this cannot be the right thing to do because police departments fall short in their handling of other crimes... you are very obviously engaging in a logical fallacy. You are arguing that the police SHOULD NOT try to do the right thing here because they have not been able to do the right thing EVERYWHERE ELSE. It is called a "call to hypocrisy" (eg... "Al Gore obviously does not actually care about global warming because he flies in a private jet, or flies anywhere to talk about global warming") and it is BS when other people do it and it is BS when you do it.

I am interested in any arguments that this was not OK because the kid was black (but it would have been ok to do to a white kid), or any factual assertion that the kid was actually treated poorly or unfairly.

Drudge Retort
 

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2022 World Readable