Hi!
Ramy, you know better than to take this bait. Personal attacks are still against the rules, even when provoked.
Nausi, you ARE being a hypocrite. You can't shift between extreme libertarian and extreme authoritarian and not expect to get called out on it. Grow up.
[Edit: added more to Ramy's finger-wagging]
Random Politics & Religion #00
|
Random Politics & Religion #00
Asura.Kingnobody said: » Ramyrez said: » Trump advocates violating the First Amendment Can you explain? Trump is only the most recent threat to the First Amendment The Hill Quote: In one year, what you're about to read might be illegal. That's the message that comedian Louis C.K. had for his fans earlier this month when discussing presidential candidate Donald Trump's (R) suggestion that we "open up libel laws" to prevent journalists, opinion writers and possibly comedians from critiquing leading political figures in a way that Trump finds distasteful. Trump Keeps Trashing the First Amendment, Yet the First Amendment Is the Only Thing Protecting Trump's Vile Outbursts Trump's bigotry “could happen only in America with complete assurance that no criminal proceedings will follow.” reason.com
[+]
Drama Torama said: » Ramy, you know better than to take this bait. Probably but I'm caught up on my work and this is actually a little cathartic given having these discussion in the workplace tends to lead to bad things. Garuda.Chanti said: » He wants to be able to sue news orginazations who say bad things about him. I was going to let this one go in general because he sues everyone and anyone he possibly can. He abuses so many legal technicalities he'll make Slick Willy™ look like a piece of sandpaper. Ramyrez said: » You're such a *** hypocrite. You preach liberty and freedom until someone actually tries to use it in a way you don't like, then you become an authoritarian coward.
[+]
You should be able to sue any publication, media outlet or person that calls you a racist. There is nothing more damaging to a reputation.
If they have the goods then they can prove it in court. Ramyrez said: » I get the technical difference being assumed in Nausi's argument and acknowledge that getting down to the strict word-for-word, obviously they're not protected until they're here. The idea is to head them off at the pass so they don't have to be offered the rights we (clearly) take for granted. I just think it's a thin excuse to be an insular coward. You are trying to give rights to foreign nationals that they do not have, either by domestic or international law (you cannot force a national law on another nation). Once they become citizens, they get all the rights and privileges of being a US citizen. Which includes the 14th Amendment. Until then, they don't get it. Preventing a group of people from entering the country is neither going against the 1st or 14th Amendment, which is your entire argument.
[+]
Garuda.Chanti said: » He wants to be able to sue news orginazations who say bad things about him. 1st Amendment protects citizens against government retribution, not citizen retribution.
[+]
Asura.Kingnobody said: » Garuda.Chanti said: » He wants to be able to sue news orginazations who say bad things about him. 1st Amendment protects citizens against government retribution, not citizen retribution. And there is no real media anymore. News outlets are only political weapons. Everything is editorial.
[+]
Drama Torama said: » Hi! Ramy, you know better than to take this bait. Personal attacks are still against the rules, even when provoked. Nausi, you ARE being a hypocrite. You can't shift between extreme libertarian and extreme authoritarian and not expect to get called out on it. Grow up. [Edit: added more to Ramy's finger-wagging] Legit was not an attack on people who disagree with me. I seriously wonder if some people are scared to start up to Islam and its radicalization. Standing up to bad things is scary. I get scarred just like everyone else. Not pointing out that he's personally attacking me to get him I trouble, just to protect myself. Asura.Kingnobody said: » Garuda.Chanti said: » He wants to be able to sue news orginazations who say bad things about him. 1st Amendment protects citizens against government retribution, not citizen retribution. Yeah, this was my question. Is he saying he'll do that when he's President? Because that's sort of alarming, if he's saying the government will come after the enemies of President Trump. But if it's what he's been doing all along, suing anyone/everyone, then whatever. That's who he is, nothing new there, and it's not a First Amendment violation.
[+]
Drama Torama said: » Asura.Kingnobody said: » Garuda.Chanti said: » He wants to be able to sue news orginazations who say bad things about him. 1st Amendment protects citizens against government retribution, not citizen retribution. Yeah, this was my question. Is he saying he'll do that when he's President? Because that's sort of alarming, if he's saying the government will come after the enemies of President Trump. But if it's what he's been doing all along, suing anyone/everyone, then whatever. That's who he is, nothing new there, and it's not a First Amendment violation. I don't believe his message is "after I get elected" but to (help) create laws that defines libel better. Ragnarok.Nausi said: » Legit was not an attack on people who disagree with me. I seriously wonder if some people are scared to start up to Islam and its radicalization. You're not trying to stand up against radicals. You're calling for an out-and-out ban on a huge portion of the world's population from entering our free country because of their religion, because a tiny percentage of that religion uses their beliefs as an excuse to carry out their terrible desires. And the 14th Amendment indicates that on U.S. soil, even as a non-citizen, you have rights under the Constitution. Drama Torama said: » Asura.Kingnobody said: » Garuda.Chanti said: » He wants to be able to sue news orginazations who say bad things about him. 1st Amendment protects citizens against government retribution, not citizen retribution. Yeah, this was my question. Is he saying he'll do that when he's President? Because that's sort of alarming, if he's saying the government will come after the enemies of President Trump. But if it's what he's been doing all along, suing anyone/everyone, then whatever. That's who he is, nothing new there, and it's not a First Amendment violation. I think it's more than a little naïve to assume Trump wouldn't use his executive powers for personal gain. In fact, I sort of would expect anyone voting for him to realize that's exactly the kind of thing he'd do and they're down with it... "Revenge at any cost" is the tying thread among his "diverse" supporters. Ramyrez said: » You're calling for an out-and-out ban on a huge portion of the world's population from entering our free country because of their religion, because a tiny percentage of that religion uses their beliefs as an excuse to carry out their terrible desires. Oh, I'm sure if people of the Islam faith actually even tried to stop it, they would have stopped it a long time ago. Ramyrez said: » And the 14th Amendment indicates that on U.S. soil, even as a non-citizen, you have rights under the Constitution. People wishing to visit the US can still get denied access at the airport (not US soil), and they are not protected by the 14th Amendment. And if they are here illegally? Guess what? 14th Amendment allows "due process" and they can lose their rights immediately by being here illegally. Foreign nationals do not automatically get rights just because you say they do. There is due process to give them rights.
[+]
Asura.Kingnobody said: » Limited protection. But not foreign nationals who are not on US soil. People wishing to visit the US can still get denied access at the airport (not US soil), and they are not protected by the 14th Amendment. Ramyrez said: » I get the technical difference being assumed in Nausi's argument and acknowledge that getting down to the strict word-for-word, obviously they're not protected until they're here. The idea is to head them off at the pass so they don't have to be offered the rights we (clearly) take for granted. At the bottom of last page, easily missed I guess. Asura.Kingnobody said: » And if they are here illegally? Guess what? 14th Amendment allows "due process" and they can lose their rights immediately by being here illegally. Foreign nationals do not automatically get rights just because you say they do. There is due process to give them rights. Great? I'm not trying to defend illegal immigrants. I'm proposing we don't act like a bunch of scardycats banning millions upon millions of potential great thinkers, artists, and workers from our country on the basis that they were raised in a specific religion. And while the technicality is that they're not protected until they're on U.S. soil, I think it seriously skirts the entire concept of freedom and our "inalienable rights" to simply act like people aren't human beings until they're physically here. Garuda.Chanti said: » Asura.Kingnobody said: » Ramyrez said: » Trump advocates violating the First Amendment Can you explain? Trump is only the most recent threat to the First Amendment The Hill Quote: In one year, what you're about to read might be illegal. That's the message that comedian Louis C.K. had for his fans earlier this month when discussing presidential candidate Donald Trump's (R) suggestion that we "open up libel laws" to prevent journalists, opinion writers and possibly comedians from critiquing leading political figures in a way that Trump finds distasteful. Trump Keeps Trashing the First Amendment, Yet the First Amendment Is the Only Thing Protecting Trump's Vile Outbursts Trump's bigotry “could happen only in America with complete assurance that no criminal proceedings will follow.” reason.com I am a very hard line constitutionalist but I have to disagree on this one. If you blatantly lie about a person or horribly misrepresent them in order to discredit a individual for no other reason than ratings, sales, you do not like him, I do not agree that that is free speech because your words carry damage. I would sue them for libel as well. When you say things in print or on the news like "Trump is a racist" etc, you libel. Now if you had proof of such then hey fire away, but they do not.
[+]
Ramyrez said: » Ragnarok.Nausi said: » Legit was not an attack on people who disagree with me. I seriously wonder if some people are scared to start up to Islam and its radicalization. You're not trying to stand up against radicals. You're calling for an out-and-out ban on a huge portion of the world's population from entering our free country because of their religion, because a tiny percentage of that religion uses their beliefs as an excuse to carry out their terrible desires. And the 14th Amendment indicates that on U.S. soil, even as a non-citizen, you have rights under the Constitution. It's not paranoia when they really are trying to kill us.
[+]
Odin.Slore said: » I am a very hard line constitutionalist but I have to disagree on this one. If you blatantly lie about a person or horribly misrepresent them in order to discredit a individual for no other reason than ratings, sales, you do not like him, I do not agree that that is free speech because your words carry damage. I would sue them for libel as well. When you say things in print or on the news like "Trump is a racist" etc, you libel. Now if you had proof of such then hey fire away, but they do not. Quote: Let’s not mince words: Donald Trump is a bigot and a racist. Some will think this an outrageous label to apply to the frontrunner for a major party’s presidential nomination. Ordinarily, I would agree that name-calling is part of what’s wrong with our politics. But there is a greater imperative not to be silent in the face of demagoguery. Trump in this campaign has gone after African Americans, immigrants, Latinos, Asians, women, Muslims and now the disabled. His pattern brings to mind the famous words of Martin Neimoller, the pastor and concentration camp survivor (“First they came for the socialists…”) that Ohio Gov. John Kasich adroitly used in a video last week attacking Trump’s hateful broadsides. It might be possible to explain away any one of Trump’s outrages as a mistake or a misunderstanding. But at some point you’re not merely saying things that could be construed as bigoted: You are a bigot. I know, I know. a Media source. How dare I? Ramyrez said: » Asura.Kingnobody said: » Limited protection. But not foreign nationals who are not on US soil. People wishing to visit the US can still get denied access at the airport (not US soil), and they are not protected by the 14th Amendment. Ramyrez said: » I get the technical difference being assumed in Nausi's argument and acknowledge that getting down to the strict word-for-word, obviously they're not protected until they're here. The idea is to head them off at the pass so they don't have to be offered the rights we (clearly) take for granted. At the bottom of last page, easily missed I guess. Asura.Kingnobody said: » And if they are here illegally? Guess what? 14th Amendment allows "due process" and they can lose their rights immediately by being here illegally. Foreign nationals do not automatically get rights just because you say they do. There is due process to give them rights. Great? I'm not trying to defend illegal immigrants. I'm proposing we don't act like a bunch of scardycats banning millions upon millions of potential great thinkers, artists, and workers from our country on the basis that they were raised in a specific religion. And while the technicality is that they're not protected until they're on U.S. soil, I think it seriously skirts the entire concept of freedom and our "inalienable rights" to simply act like people aren't human beings until they're physically here. How do you feel then on Jimmy Carters ban on Muslims when he was president? Was that different because it was a democrat?
[+]
Odin.Slore said: » How do you feel then on Jimmy Carters ban on Muslims when he was president? Was that different because it was a democrat? Would you care to rephrase your question so that it actually reflects the events that took place?
[+]
Ramyrez said: » Odin.Slore said: » I am a very hard line constitutionalist but I have to disagree on this one. If you blatantly lie about a person or horribly misrepresent them in order to discredit a individual for no other reason than ratings, sales, you do not like him, I do not agree that that is free speech because your words carry damage. I would sue them for libel as well. When you say things in print or on the news like "Trump is a racist" etc, you libel. Now if you had proof of such then hey fire away, but they do not. Quote: Let’s not mince words: Donald Trump is a bigot and a racist. Some will think this an outrageous label to apply to the frontrunner for a major party’s presidential nomination. Ordinarily, I would agree that name-calling is part of what’s wrong with our politics. But there is a greater imperative not to be silent in the face of demagoguery. Trump in this campaign has gone after African Americans, immigrants, Latinos, Asians, women, Muslims and now the disabled. His pattern brings to mind the famous words of Martin Neimoller, the pastor and concentration camp survivor (“First they came for the socialists…”) that Ohio Gov. John Kasich adroitly used in a video last week attacking Trump’s hateful broadsides. It might be possible to explain away any one of Trump’s outrages as a mistake or a misunderstanding. But at some point you’re not merely saying things that could be construed as bigoted: You are a bigot. I know, I know. a Media source. How dare I? A opinion column from a liberal news source is not in fact proving news. I have watched all of Trumps rallies that were televised and watch countless hours on debates and I have not seen a fraction of what that article claims. Op Eds don't state fact that's why they are opinion.
[+]
Odin.Slore said: » How do you feel then on Jimmy Carters ban on Muslims when he was president? Was that different because it was a democrat? That was a ban on Iranians, not Muslims. While you could argue that there's little practical difference, from a philosophical standpoint the difference is huge. Also, Carter is among -- if not the -- worst presidents the U.S. has ever had. Again I have to say today (though this time it's more clear you're actually accusing me) that no one of any politics is "safe" from me. Not that I'm anyone who matters in this regard, but my point is that accusing me of going soft on either party is misguided, at best. Shiva.Viciousss said: » Odin.Slore said: » How do you feel then on Jimmy Carters ban on Muslims when he was president? Was that different because it was a democrat? Would you care to rephrase your question so that it actually reflects the events that took place? During the Iran hostage situation when Jimmy Carter was president he banned all Muslim immigration from Iran and other countries that supported Iran. Ramyrez said: » Odin.Slore said: » How do you feel then on Jimmy Carters ban on Muslims when he was president? Was that different because it was a democrat? That was a ban on Iranians, not Muslims. While you could argue that there's little practical difference, from a philosophical standpoint the difference is huge. Also, Carter is among -- if not the -- worst presidents the U.S. has ever had. Again I have to say today (though this time it's more clear you're actually accusing me) that no one of any politics is "safe" from me. Not that I'm anyone who matters in this regard, but my point is that accusing me of going soft on either party is misguided, at best. I will never attack someone for their political beliefs. We can agree to disagree and I am fine with that. I also do not attempt to guess anyones political party. Ramyrez said: » Asura.Kingnobody said: » Limited protection. But not foreign nationals who are not on US soil. People wishing to visit the US can still get denied access at the airport (not US soil), and they are not protected by the 14th Amendment. Ramyrez said: » I get the technical difference being assumed in Nausi's argument and acknowledge that getting down to the strict word-for-word, obviously they're not protected until they're here. The idea is to head them off at the pass so they don't have to be offered the rights we (clearly) take for granted. At the bottom of last page, easily missed I guess. Asura.Kingnobody said: » And if they are here illegally? Guess what? 14th Amendment allows "due process" and they can lose their rights immediately by being here illegally. Foreign nationals do not automatically get rights just because you say they do. There is due process to give them rights. Great? I'm not trying to defend illegal immigrants. I'm proposing we don't act like a bunch of scardycats banning millions upon millions of potential great thinkers, artists, and workers from our country on the basis that they were raised in a specific religion. Then again, these terror attacks in Paris and Brussels were more than likely brought into effect either directly or indirectly from the refugee crisis last year. Is it conclusive? No, but like I said, likely. Should we open ourselves up to an attack that not even Interpol is able to identify potential terror suspects? Well?
[+]
Odin.Slore said: » During the Iran hostage situation when Jimmy Carter was president he banned all Muslim immigration from Iran and other countries that supported Iran. He banned Iranian nationals. Not Muslims. Again, you can argue there's little practical difference, but the difference is gigantic if we apply it across the board as an example and not try to make exception for just one case. And even then I'm not completely on board with banning anyone outright from the U.S. due to their port of departure. Odin.Slore said: » Shiva.Viciousss said: » Odin.Slore said: » How do you feel then on Jimmy Carters ban on Muslims when he was president? Was that different because it was a democrat? Would you care to rephrase your question so that it actually reflects the events that took place? During the Iran hostage situation when Jimmy Carter was president he banned all Muslim immigration from Iran and other countries that supported Iran. No, he didn't. It had NOTHING to do with Islam. It was all about Iran. Odin.Slore said: » I will never attack someone for their political beliefs. We can agree to disagree and I am fine with that. I also do not attempt to guess anyones political party. No but you pointedly inferred that I was about to give Jimmy Carter a pass for being a Democrat, and that is demonstrably untrue. Ramyrez said: » And even then I'm not completely on board with banning anyone outright from the U.S. due to their port of departure. |
All FFXIV and FFXI content and images © 2002-2024 SQUARE ENIX CO., LTD.
FINAL FANTASY is a registered trademark of Square Enix Co., Ltd.