|
|
Post by Caitshidhe on Jul 17, 2009 17:39:14 GMT -5
Is there any context to that picture Lazuline? Because I'd be interested to know...
|
|
|
|
Post by Jodie on Jul 17, 2009 17:47:08 GMT -5
![]() snip[ /img] Those bumper stickers are the ultimate in TL;DR. Where does the line for freedom of speech and hate speech exist in the U.S.A, I wonder? The owner of that van would not be able to have those stickers in Canada I bet (or at least hope). |
|
Lazuline
Full Member
Subarashii!
Posts: 140
|
Post by Lazuline on Jul 17, 2009 17:50:58 GMT -5
Is there any context to that picture Lazuline? Because I'd be interested to know... It's from a protest in front of the Israeli embassy in Tokyo after Israel bombed Gaza in December. |
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Jul 17, 2009 17:54:19 GMT -5
![]() snip[ /img] Those bumper stickers are the ultimate in TL;DR. Where does the line for freedom of speech and hate speech exist in the U.S.A, I wonder? The owner of that van would not be able to have those stickers in Canada I bet (or at least hope). We have laws against hate speech? The last time I checked you can be as hateful as you want with your words, which is why groups like the Phelps and the KKK can say whatever the fuck they want. |
|
|
|
Post by skyfire on Jul 17, 2009 18:47:18 GMT -5
Not really. It makes sense when you look at it. Ironbite-if somebodies using their welfare to buy drugs, the government might need to know. Yes, but at the same time linking welfare to mandatory drug testing would piss off so many special interest groups (it'd reinforce stereotypes, don'cha know?  ) - especially ones that lean Democrat - that it'd never pass muster right now; we'd need both a GOP majority and a GOP president for that to ever happen. |
|
|
|
Post by ironbite on Jul 17, 2009 18:49:57 GMT -5
It also wouldn't pass muster no matter who's in charge.
Ironbite-like you said, too many special intrest groups would be howling for blood.
|
|
|
|
Post by DeadpanDoubter on Jul 17, 2009 18:58:49 GMT -5
Not really. It makes sense when you look at it. Ironbite-if somebodies using their welfare to buy drugs, the government might need to know. Yes, but at the same time linking welfare to mandatory drug testing would piss off so many special interest groups (it'd reinforce stereotypes, don'cha know? ) - especially ones that lean Democrat - that it'd never pass muster right now; we'd need both a GOP majority and a GOP president for that to ever happen. Look, if you're going to expect to be helped, you should expect to be held accountable in any number of ways. Would I submit to a drug test before receiving Financial Aid for college? Fuck yes. Would I, however, allow them to investigate my parents' health histories (which they tried to do) in order for ME to get government health insurance? Fuck no. I don't think I know any minority members who're eligible for welfare, but I know quite a few 'whites' who are, and quite a few whites who AREN'T, but lie/cheat/steal to get it. So, personally, I don't see the big deal about making sure people aren't, you know, being complete cheats and thieves. |
|
|
|
Post by devilschaplain2 on Jul 17, 2009 19:18:35 GMT -5
![]() snip[ /img] Those bumper stickers are the ultimate in TL;DR. Where does the line for freedom of speech and hate speech exist in the U.S.A, I wonder? The owner of that van would not be able to have those stickers in Canada I bet (or at least hope). See we don't have those pesky hate speech laws here. Take the Matthew Shepard Act for example, it states quite clearly that it shall not infringe upon First Amendment rights, so even if you spout off homophobic nonsense, you're well within your right. And I'm glad it's this way, because I don't agree with censoring a person just because what they say is hateful. Besides, it lets us know who all the bigots are. |
|
|
|
Post by Hades on Jul 17, 2009 19:32:59 GMT -5
You can say whatever you like, no matter how vile. Of course, if all those bumper stickers replaced "Islam" with "Christianity", and "Muslims/Arabs" with "Christards", I'm sure there would be a shit storm of epic proportions to have them removed.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jodie on Jul 17, 2009 20:12:21 GMT -5
 Good people?  Not a protest sign, but dumb/hilarious at the same time. |
|
|
|
Post by DeadpanDoubter on Jul 17, 2009 20:14:47 GMT -5
Good people? Rebellious women suck! Get in the kitchen and make me a sammich, woman. And don't be a pervert, or drink, or take it up the south end, or...or...*refers to the list* ...JUST MAKE ME A SAMMICH. |
|
|
|
Post by Hades on Jul 17, 2009 20:16:56 GMT -5
Good people? I'm guessing they mean people we would normally consider good. People who are nice, charitable, and/or all around nice examples of humanity. Of course that's not "good" to some people. To some people, being good means having faith in god and nothing else. Especially if you hate who and what god hates. That's really good. |
|
|
|
Post by skyfire on Jul 17, 2009 20:33:02 GMT -5
Look, if you're going to expect to be helped, you should expect to be held accountable in any number of ways. Would I submit to a drug test before receiving Financial Aid for college? Fuck yes. Would I, however, allow them to investigate my parents' health histories (which they tried to do) in order for ME to get government health insurance? Fuck no. I find it ironic that the US government requires more financial accountability from the average college student than they did from the banks who got bailout money. The banks got handed cash hand-over-fist without any questions being asked, while regular folk who just want a degree effectively have to consent to a body-cavity search of their finances to make sure that not a single penny is getting wasted. The stereotypical welfare recipient is a minority, usually black or Hispanic, who is either too incapacitated from drug / alcohol abuse to hold a steady job, a gang-banger type who would rather hustle than make an honest living, an illegal immigrant, or a welfare cheat who exists to sponge off of the government doles because they feel "entitled" to do so for whatever reason. As a result, any attempts to reform welfare or to step up the requirements a recipient must go through will cause all hell to break loose as minority rights groups start to lob around accusations of "racism" at anyone and everyone who they even remotely think is going to push for change to the status quo. And let's face it, folks: the party who most minority rights groups cling to is the Democrats. So long as we have a solid Democrat bloc in Washington, we'll not have meaningful welfare reform. |
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Jul 17, 2009 20:36:04 GMT -5
So long as we have a solid Democrat bloc in Washington, we'll not have meaningful welfare reform. You're right, we need a good number of Socialists instead, that way those on welfare and disability can get actual help. |
|
|
|
Post by ironbite on Jul 17, 2009 20:38:54 GMT -5
...The Republicans don't have the warmest track record when it comes to meaningful welfare reform there Skyfire. I wouldn't be touting that line there buddy boy.
Ironbite-and btw...the fuck does having the groups that want the rights clinging to the Democrats stop welfare reform?
|
|
) - especially ones that lean Democrat - that it'd never pass muster right now; we'd need both a GOP majority and a GOP president for that to ever happen.
