I'm a liberal professor, and my liberal students terrify me

[moda0306]

You are clearly in the right on this issue. I don't give a crap what PC nonsense anyone wants to spout, and they can't hurt me with "social disapproval".

The illegal actions of the government are of much more concern to me, because they CAN hurt me.

Yes!

Plus, it just waters way down the conversation around the Constitution in the first place.  I think it's good that people generally value free speech, but here are the different types of threats to my free speech:

1) Governmental physical threat: This is illegal and is of catastrophic risk to the health of our republic.

2) Individual physical threat:  This is illegal but of little threat to the health of the republic.

3) Individual "PC" threat:  This is legal and little threat to the health of the republic.


When people talk about the first amendment as they focus on A&E firing a bunch of rednecks off their TV line-up, they're rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.  How about we focus on how the U.S. has detained foreign journalists without charges, or is calling for the arrest of journalists that leak illegal actions of the executive branch... and when we don't have dissenters of U.S. foreign policy being automatically labelled as terrorists and taken out by a drone, we can move to the next step...

THEN, let's talk about actual individual THREATS to our liberty (rather than calls for PC'ness).  Like, perhaps, cartoonists getting shot by Muslim extremists.  But let's not advocate for violations of #1 to help us avoid a chance of #2, and pretend to call ourselves "defending the constitution."

Then, and only then should worry about whether Paula Deen has should have a cooking show and whether Donald Sterling stays coach of the a sports team.

moda, you will never be elected president.  Far too logical.  Far too unlikely to run with the buffalos.  Are you sure you are not slowly coming out of your closet statism to be more pointedstickedist?  Now, if you can combine pointedstickedness and mountaineering with an herbal supplement and Blue Moon while begraggedly sitting in the desert investorL8ing on your benco reubenating, we might get somewhere.  (Appologies to all those I left out).

... Mountaineer

I've quite recently fell into a den of civil libertarian thought that I didn't even realize existed, and I have to say I'm quite captivated by it, as I've always taken a pretty loosy-goosy approach to respecting checks/balances and the rule of law based on my individual opinions on individual issues, not realize what structural problems agents of the state in un-monitored power truly are to the future of our country.  It's something that doesn't fall into convenient tribal/political banterings, and we tend not to comment on things we don't know are happening, and we also tend to give a bit of deference to the state when it acts to protect us vs other functions, so I feel I fell into that trap.

I still am not strictly an economic libertarian (some areas I am... not others).  I think Tenn is more who I'm becoming.  I am starting to see in vivid color what a fustercluck the following statist structures are:

- Defense/nat'l-security
- War on Drugs
- Prison system in-general
- Elections & political process

Once you study a bit more of what the founding fathers wanted out of government and why, but work a bit to escape the traditional conservative mind-set that loves to focus on states rights, social safety nets, capitalism vs mixed economics, and democracy in general (all valid discussions, but get the lions-share of Constitutional banter), you realize that there are structures worth preserving and some worth avoiding.  That it's not just about "tyranny of the majority," but also "tyranny of the unaccountable, working-in-secret minority."

I was so stuck in defending violations of certain areas of the founder's preferences (well some of them anyway) in arguments with conservatives and economic libertarians on this board, like state's rights and the others mentioned, that I was blinded to the violations of structures that I think were morally/logically consistent and justified (mostly), and are actually EXTREMELY important to having a "good government" vs "bad government."

IMO, of course.  I'd love to see Greenwald get in a debate where he doesn't destroy the competition.  I'm starting to get bored with my own self-righteousness on this topic.

[MachineGhost]

It just seems to me, that over my life time, there are a lot more self-centered pricks than there used to be.

It's called narcissism and its all the Internet's fault!

Our country is doomed.  "Rome" is burning while the Great Unwashed fiddle.

The End Is Near.

[MachineGhost]

IMO, of course.  I'd love to see Greenwald get in a debate where he doesn't destroy the competition.  I'm starting to get bored with my own self-righteousness on this topic.

Don't worry, we're all looking on you with amusement!  Better late, than never, right?

I'd say you are becoming a post-modern libertarian, though I don't know all of what TennPaGa believes...  he's too conservative for me, I think.

[Mountaineer]

Yes!

Plus, it just waters way down the conversation around the Constitution in the first place.  I think it's good that people generally value free speech, but here are the different types of threats to my free speech:

1) Governmental physical threat: This is illegal and is of catastrophic risk to the health of our republic.

2) Individual physical threat:  This is illegal but of little threat to the health of the republic.

3) Individual "PC" threat:  This is legal and little threat to the health of the republic.


When people talk about the first amendment as they focus on A&E firing a bunch of rednecks off their TV line-up, they're rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.  How about we focus on how the U.S. has detained foreign journalists without charges, or is calling for the arrest of journalists that leak illegal actions of the executive branch... and when we don't have dissenters of U.S. foreign policy being automatically labelled as terrorists and taken out by a drone, we can move to the next step...

THEN, let's talk about actual individual THREATS to our liberty (rather than calls for PC'ness).  Like, perhaps, cartoonists getting shot by Muslim extremists.  But let's not advocate for violations of #1 to help us avoid a chance of #2, and pretend to call ourselves "defending the constitution."

Then, and only then should worry about whether Paula Deen has should have a cooking show and whether Donald Sterling stays coach of the a sports team.

moda, you will never be elected president.  Far too logical.  Far too unlikely to run with the buffalos.  Are you sure you are not slowly coming out of your closet statism to be more pointedstickedist?  Now, if you can combine pointedstickedness and mountaineering with an herbal supplement and Blue Moon while begraggedly sitting in the desert investorL8ing on your benco reubenating, we might get somewhere.  (Appologies to all those I left out).

... Mountaineer

I've quite recently fell into a den of civil libertarian thought that I didn't even realize existed, and I have to say I'm quite captivated by it, as I've always taken a pretty loosy-goosy approach to respecting checks/balances and the rule of law based on my individual opinions on individual issues, not realize what structural problems agents of the state in un-monitored power truly are to the future of our country.  It's something that doesn't fall into convenient tribal/political banterings, and we tend not to comment on things we don't know are happening, and we also tend to give a bit of deference to the state when it acts to protect us vs other functions, so I feel I fell into that trap.

I still am not strictly an economic libertarian (some areas I am... not others).  I think Tenn is more who I'm becoming.  I am starting to see in vivid color what a fustercluck the following statist structures are:

- Defense/nat'l-security
- War on Drugs
- Prison system in-general
- Elections & political process

Once you study a bit more of what the founding fathers wanted out of government and why, but work a bit to escape the traditional conservative mind-set that loves to focus on states rights, social safety nets, capitalism vs mixed economics, and democracy in general (all valid discussions, but get the lions-share of Constitutional banter), you realize that there are structures worth preserving and some worth avoiding.  That it's not just about "tyranny of the majority," but also "tyranny of the unaccountable, working-in-secret minority."

I was so stuck in defending violations of certain areas of the founder's preferences (well some of them anyway) in arguments with conservatives and economic libertarians on this board, like state's rights and the others mentioned, that I was blinded to the violations of structures that I think were morally/logically consistent and justified (mostly), and are actually EXTREMELY important to having a "good government" vs "bad government."

IMO, of course.  I'd love to see Greenwald get in a debate where he doesn't destroy the competition.  I'm starting to get bored with my own self-righteousness on this topic.

Welcome to the club.    Apparently the scales from your eyes have been removed.  So much for your blind eye, to paraphrase an internet friend.  Beware the path in front of you, discern the right one.  You may be voting for traditional/conservative/libertarian/founding father loving/law abiding/Christian/free thinker before you know it. 

... Mountaineer

[Mountaineer]

It just seems to me, that over my life time, there are a lot more self-centered pricks than there used to be.

It's called narcissism and its all the Internet's fault!

Our country is doomed.  "Rome" is burning while the Great Unwashed fiddle.

The End Is Near.

Whew!  There for a moment I though you were going to say it is Bush's fault.  Gore started it all, after all, and I always knew it was the Neroites fault. 

... Mountaineer

[moda0306]

Mountaineer,

I really see the Civil Libertarian club, if you HAD to put a label on it, more liberal than conservative... seeing as neo-conservative is tending to be the new "conservative."

However, having a liberal president in the white house makes it a lot harder to notice, as 70%+ of supposed liberals will switch on the issue when you go from a redneck to a liberal college professor in the office.

This is why I'm utterly annoyed with the namby pamby causes the left is bringing on (making sure gay people get cake from the baker they want).  There are far bigger and more important things happening.  The feminazi wing of liberals is utterly embarassing sometimes.

[Pointedstick]

For the most part I agree with where you're at, Moda. I'm just not sure how we got to here from where we started.  I find that there are different kinds of risks that originate both from government and from the private sector. This stuff here is just about an unfortunate social trend. It doesn't have to be the government's doing to be annoying or potentially harmful.

[Libertarian666]

Technically correct in the absolute.  But how about the 60/40 or 51/49 or 55/45 cases like in our population?  Everyone can be a do gooder or a do badder a small percentage of the time.  I'm thinking the statistics like we use to sterotype liberal/conservative or Democrat/Republican etc.  I'm think of the fundamental divider, not the surface fluff.  Do you think I'm wrong and liberal/conservative is the best measure, or something else?  It just seems to me, that over my life time, there are a lot more self-centered pricks than there used to be.

... Mountaineer

I see it as much simpler: those who follow the Golden Rule, to the extent they do, are the good guys, and those who don't follow it, to that extent, are the bad guys.

[Benko]

I see it as much simpler: those who follow the Golden Rule, to the extent they do, are the good guys, and those who don't follow it, to that extent, are the bad guys.

+1. 

And Dante has a special place for those who tell you how you must behave while misbehaving themselves. 

[MachineGhost]

And Dante has a special place for those who tell you how you must behave while misbehaving themselves.

That's not good enough for me!  I want to see vengeance on them while I'm alive, not some fairy tale absolution that they'll get their comeuppance in the afterlife.  I'm a sadist, remember?

[Mountaineer]

And Dante has a special place for those who tell you how you must behave while misbehaving themselves.

That's not good enough for me!  I want to see vengeance on them while I'm alive, not some fairy tale absolution that they'll get their comeuppance in the afterlife.  I'm a sadist, remember?

Hey, rejoice!  Perhaps you will have a front-row seat so you can see all the gnashing of the adversary's teeth up close and personal (if your own teeth gnashing and anger for rejecting the gift is not overly distracting).  Ugh, that adversary line just reminded me of the "Lord of the Flies" movie. 

... Mountaineer