Had an interesting conversation this morning on Facebook that I wanted to share. Got called a 'nazi sympathizer' because I am not okay with denying Trump and Ann Coulter's 1st Amendment Right. And yet apparently that makes me the Anti American...

 

One of my friends, who is politically Moderate, posted an article about Ann Coulter's recently cancelled speech. He agreed with what the article stated which I listed below.

 

 

 

I've got no love for people like Ann Coulter. But regardless of how much I dislike her, I value her right to free speech. All public and government funded institutions have a Constitutional obligation to create an environment that allows individuals to speak about their ideas, opinions and viewpoints.

Just because you might disagree with a conservative doesn't mean everyone on a college campus feels the same way. One ideology doesn't get to dictate all speaking engagements on a college campus. If I wasn't exposed to different perspectives, I would still be against decriminalizing drugs or same sex marriage. I'm not saying someone like Coulter would necessarily change anyone's mind on anything. But by threatening her with violence, or making it harder for her to speak on campuses, you're giving her exactly what she wants.

 

She wants attention. She wants to point a finger at students and make them appear to be against the First Amendment. She wants to belittle and minimize the importance of higher education.

 

Don't play into that, and don't give her what she wants. Let her speak, and refuse to go see her if you're offended by her message. She'll only be relevant if we allow her to be. Love you guys, and I hope you see where I'm coming from. I respect all the varying emotions that come along with situations like this. But what's right is right. We need to protect free speech regardless of the speaker in question.

 

 

While I don't agree with it all, I do relate to its premise. If you don't like what someone is talking about, then don't listen. Well one of my more left leaning Facebook friends came along and this happened. Someone who I should mention in the past has stated multiple times how Black Lives Matter are innocent saints, don't incite riots, Cops are bunch of murderous racist thugs, and Trump is practically the Anti Christ. I've blocked out the name but marked DM when I am the one responding.

 

http://i130.photobucket.com/albums/p268/Airsoft_Commando/1st_zps9ww3hqvb.png

http://i130.photobucket.com/albums/p268/Airsoft_Commando/2_zpscbahqjgq.png

 

The best part is when she calls me a racist and says she is ending the conversation, and then when I call her out on that is the stereotypical thing liberals do, she denies saying either one of those things! I didn't even respond because even if I quoted her she still wouldn't get it. I love political discussions but if you gotta be mature about it if you want me to take your argument seriously.

This is pretty pathetic. Unfortunately, it isn't gonna get better... I think it's gonna get much worse. There is an outlaw element inside the left that will piggyback on the discontent, to seize every opportunity, to cause riots and destroy property, every chance they get. This is the result of years of not enforcing the law. Too many lines crossed, and no political courage to shut things down when it's gone too far. Patience and understanding is no longer an option. People will get hurt, maybe even killed, in the wake.

 

These people that call us Nazi have no idea what they're talking about, and know nothing about Adolf Hitler. This person that DM was talking with believes that free speech was the cause of Hitler's rise to power, but in reality it was Hitler who crushed free speech in order to seize power. By the time Hitler was making his most notorious speeches, he had already eliminated... sorry, I mean killed... all voices of opposition. So the Fascist's are the one's that are calling us Fascist.

 

Ann Coulter is harmless, and they should just let her come in silently, and leave silently. Opposing her speech makes her a martyr, and grants her more power than she ever would have had if these people would just keep their mouths shut, and let it go. Now more will follow... and they will bring an army with them. 

 

It will not be long before the illegal immigration issue turns into the new version of protecting fugitive slaves, which is completely whacked, but that's what they will do. When this happens, we will be creating a whole new group of criminals that are protecting criminals... and people will get killed. Ready for the second Civil War?... it's starting all around us.

What's hilarious here is that it's your "friend" who is actually the fascist. If you want to curtail free speech, it's you who are on the same platform as Mao, Hitler and Stalin, no matter if you are coming from the left or right.

 

Obviously a dogmatic person of limited intellect, you're better off without her.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XtGOQFf9VCE

The gentleman above me...

 

In his signature is a very important quote I'd like everyone take a second to read. Unfortunately it is a little smaller, but it's along the lines of "Don't get me wrong... I love the First Amendment... Nobody uses it more than I do!" - President Donald J. Trump

 

So with that in mind, I still find these arguments liberals attempt to put up amazing. This quote --> Point nullified --> Liberal screams that you're a Nazi --> Liberal leaves conversation out of "disgust" when they really are retreating before they lose too much --> Goes to their "safe space" of fellow liberals and cry about the mean words (let's disregard that the only one insulting was the Liberal) --> Liberals create a protest (riot) to demonstrate (incite chaos) against the leadership of our country, whom have done nothing wrong other than disagree with them... Which is 100% allowed as per - oh yeah - free speech .

 

Once again, thank god the police force no longer have to cower in fear at the wrath of their "politically correct" superiors, because I have a feeling their job is going to be getting more active. But that's ok, those of us that believe in the Second Amendment would be glad to provide any assistance needed

So you found a person vilifying the same thing they are currently doing? grats? Any side of an argument has people who use 2 different measures depending on the person's choice in the argument.

 

Everything extreme on the spectrum of whatever scale you measure people on can go sit on an island for all I care.

Why do people always compare Trump to Hitler? Are they so ignorant that they cant find someone comparable? I am not a Trump fan, but lets not compare someone who murdered millions and put the world into a war that killed millions more, versus someone who makes choices based on corporate interests.

Same way why socialists are compared to USSR communists I suppose, trying to find the most evil example in history.

Your nation is headed for a big disaster.

Americans have the habit of comparing everyone they don't like to the worst possible case. It will be their death knell. They are easily irritated.

 

Betsy, i am not a supporter of communism but the way you said i think that you or almost every western citizen think that communists are enemies of humanity and therefore must be taken out.

Let's start gathering what all Obama has been called by the right-wing on internet...weeeee

Betsy, i am not a supporter of communism but the way you said i think that you or almost every western citizen think that communists are enemies of humanity and therefore must be taken out.

 

Lets first state that I don't believe nation-wide communism has occured yet, the USSR farce was some nicely packaged authoritarian regime masquerading as something socialist.

 

Don't think much should be taken out for anythings sake (world, me, my cat, ...), I do believe any society built on a single -ism is bound to fail.

Don't think much should be taken out for anythings sake (world, me, my cat, ...), I do believe any society built on a single -ism is bound to fail.

Single -ism?

So capitalist america is bound to fail?

Why do people always compare Trump to Hitler? Are they so ignorant that they cant find someone comparable? I am not a Trump fan, but lets not compare someone who murdered millions and put the world into a war that killed millions more, versus someone who makes choices based on corporate interests.

First and foremost there is the reality of Godwin's law. Someone has to bring Hitler into the conversation.

 

Second, there is some validity between a Hitler/Trump comparison. Hitler and many Germans of his time were anti-semites. He recognized this and used hate and xenophobia to rally the downtrodden country to scapegoat Jews as the cause of many of Germany's woes. By promising to make Germany great again and making blanket statement that preyed upon hate and fears of OTHERS, who were a threat to German way of life, he rose to power. Trump has used those same tactics, preying upon xenophobia, hate, rage over the perceived loss of power to certain ethnic groups (early example: Mexican "murders and rapists" invading America and ruining it; Current example: people from eight Muslim countries are too dangerous to admit into the USA). Trump promised to "make America great again" with blanket statements condemning these OTHERS. No, he hasn't attempted genocide, but if a "Final Solution" is on his agenda, xenophobic rhetoric would be how he'll get a movement started. Hitler didn't start out yelling "KILL ALL THE JEWS IN THE WORLD," he did it all gradually so it became more and more acceptable to marginalize the Jews and then send them off to "camps." Hitler became a world leader with many of the same tactics Trump has used to become a world leader. And, no I'm not saying Trump actually is planning genocide, just pointing out similar tactics to gain power, and why the use of said tactics is alarming to some people.

 

That said, I support the first amendment and I think stifling anyone is wrong. Cancelling Coulter was moronic and self defeating, especially when you consider that it bought her more publicity than she could possibly have bought for herself and got left-leaning Americans, like me, defending her right to be heard. I disagree with almost everything I've ever heard her say, but I would fight for her right to say it.

 

I find it offensive when people take a philosophical argument and turn it into a personal attack. It is a shame you were a victim of that, DM.

 

Addendum: @ DM you think Stalin was left wing??? You deserve to be personally attached! I take it all back.

 

 

Addendum: @ DM you think Stalin was left wing??? You deserve to be personally attached! I take it all back.

Stalin was a Communist. Communism is a political theory taken from the movement of Karl Marx. It is the antithesis of Capitalism, and eliminates the entire system of private property. All property is publicly owned, and each person works, and is paid, according to their abilities and needs. This is extreme Socialism... and Socialism is the heart of everything considered to be left wing. Joseph Stalin was an extreme leftist. Here are a few more of your heroes...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q10sqrFo7Os

I'd love to hear the reasoning why anyone would think Stalin wasn't left wing.

I'd love to hear the reasoning why anyone would think Stalin wasn't left wing.

He banned abortion and homosexuality. :V

Seriously though, among the communist party rulers of the USSR, Stalin was considered a centrist. He actually aligned himself with Bukharin and the right wingers in the government to force out the Trotsky camp. Then he turned on Bukharin and sidelined all the right wingers. He had some socially conservative policies and ideals that we'd often associate with the right wing in modern times, but he was a socialist in all reality, or more accurately, a Stalinist. 

 

Don't think much should be taken out for anythings sake (world, me, my cat, ...), I do believe any society built on a single -ism is bound to fail.

Single -ism?

So capitalist america is bound to fail?

 

 

Thusfar no nation has gone full "single -ism", some have come close in their respected forms (usually authoritarianism )

 

USA has indeed alot of capitalism, but I would even be hesitant to call it the most capitalist nation around (some african nations sure like to flavour capitalism to foolish levels). Still, you folks have alot of other -ism's mixed in, otherwise what are all those social programs you folks have?

 

 

 

Addendum: @ DM you think Stalin was left wing??? You deserve to be personally attached! I take it all back.

Stalin was a Communist. Communism is a political theory taken from the movement of Karl Marx. It is the antithesis of Capitalism, and eliminates the entire system of private property. All property is publicly owned, and each person works, and is paid, according to their abilities and needs. This is extreme Socialism... and Socialism is the heart of everything considered to be left wing. Joseph Stalin was an extreme leftist. Here are a few more of your heroes...

 

 

Yeah, socialist to the masses up until the point it didn't interfere with his dictatorship... I heared Siberia was a holiday resort where people could relax from their "disruptive behaviour pattern".

 

Would you start claiming that some business running a monopoly fueled by undercutting anyone trying to supply what the business supplies is capitalism? I would consider that a perversion and a loss of the "equal opportunity" that is ingrained in capitalism.

 

I'd love to hear the reasoning why anyone would think Stalin wasn't left wing.

 

Depends on which "wing" you are defining him, he sure wasn't left on the society scale, or you think this is left wing? >_>

 

I wouldn't call people "left wing" if their idea of society is restricted to its narrowist form.

 

Don't think much should be taken out for anythings sake (world, me, my cat, ...), I do believe any society built on a single -ism is bound to fail.

Single -ism?

So capitalist america is bound to fail?

Pure capitalism does not exist in America.

 

 

He banned abortion and homosexuality.

These are not left and right issues. For the most part, these are moral or religious issues. If banning abortion is a right issue... then I guess forced abortion would be a left issue? A dictator can ban abortion to increase their population... or force abortion to control over-population. There can be reasons for both, and none of it is a Socialist or Capitalist requirement. Democrats have placed abortion and homos in their platform for the sole purpose of attracting followers... but there are still pro-choice and gay Republicans. If Republicans suddenly placed protection of abortion rights in their platform, which they can because it's merely a political position, then Christians would abandon the Republicans faster than you can say Libertarian.

 

The primary mission of any Socialist platform is to disarm the population. They will come up with every excuse possible to accomplish this... school shootings, suicide, terrorism, domestic abuse, police brutality, crime... whatever... but the real reason is every Socialist platform works on class warfare, and in the end, it will have to be enforced with the barrel of a gun. This can never happen in the USA, as long as we have the Second Amendment.

 

Compare Bernie Sanders and Karl Marx. The similarities are staggering.

 

He banned abortion and homosexuality.

These are not left and right issues. For the most part, these are moral or religious issues. If banning abortion is a right issue... then I guess forced abortion would be a left issue? A dictator can ban abortion to increase their population... or force abortion to control over-population. There can be reasons for both, and none of it is a Socialist or Capitalist requirement. Democrats have placed abortion and homos in their platform for the sole purpose of attracting followers... but there are still pro-choice and gay Republicans. If Republicans suddenly placed protection of abortion rights in their platform, which they can because it's merely a political position, then Christians would abandon the Republicans faster than you can say Libertarian.

 

The primary mission of any Socialist platform is to disarm the population. They will come up with every excuse possible to accomplish this... school shootings, suicide, terrorism, domestic abuse, police brutality, crime... whatever... but the real reason is every Socialist platform works on class warfare, and in the end, it will have to be enforced with the barrel of a gun. This can never happen in the USA, as long as we have the Second Amendment.

 

Compare Bernie Sanders and Karl Marx. The similarities are staggering.

Regarding abortion, the left supports a woman's right to chose. Bernie and Karl are not Stalin, who was not liberal. Stalin was a despot, the antithesis of my definition of liberal.

 

My definition of being liberal, or left leaning involves having concern for and protecting the individual liberties of all people, not just the powerful. I believe most (not all) of our founding fathers were liberals philosophically and the constitution is a liberal document. I am hesitant to continue my thoughts on this because it is really hard for some people to show respectful disagreement and I'd rather not get into it with anyone. But suffice it to say that a leader who puts the well being of the few over the well being of the many is not liberal. Also communism is a badly abused term that has ceased to have much to do with Marx's philosophy.

Let's unpack all this...

 

 

Regarding abortion, the left supports a woman's right to chose.

You don't have to be left to support a woman's right to choose... but to be right you have to support a woman's responsibility to pay for their own abortion. You have to be left if you want to steal money to pay for your personal problems.

 

 

My definition of being liberal, or left leaning involves having concern for and protecting the individual liberties of all people, not just the powerful.

Along with having your own definition of liberal, you also want to be the one who decides what individual liberties will be protected, and which individual liberties will be discarded. I can't see much difference on what you believe is powerful.

 

 

I believe most (not all) of our founding fathers were liberals philosophically and the constitution is a liberal document.

Can't stop making shit up. This is what the left does most often. The founding fathers were rich dudes that didn't want to pay taxes to a Monarchy on the other side of the Atlantic. They wanted their own country, and their own government. The Constitution is a set of laws created to bind the states on common ground... it's not a political platform.

 

 

I am hesitant to continue my thoughts on this because it is really hard for some people to show respectful disagreement and I'd rather not get into it with anyone.

It sounds like you could be the person DM was talking to on Facebook. Just lay down the law according to you, call them Hitler, and leave before you lose the debate.

 

 

But suffice it to say that a leader who puts the well being of the few over the well being of the many is not liberal.

Let me get this straight... a leader (Obama) who puts the well being of the few (minorities, gays, illegals) over the well being of the many (everyone else)... is not liberal? So, no one on the left is liberal. Got it.

 

 

Also communism is a badly abused term that has ceased to have much to do with Marx's philosophy.

So, the philosophy of Karl Marx is good... you just hate everything that his philosophy turns out to be? Got that too. 

Yawn. There you go again, Listeria, I knew you'd resort to distorting, dismissing, deflecting, and belittling what I say. You've become predictable and your response to me is boring and unworthy.

 

 

Second, there is some validity between a Hitler/Trump comparison. Hitler and many Germans of his time were anti-semites. He recognized this and used hate and xenophobia to rally the downtrodden country to scapegoat Jews as the cause of many of Germany's woes. By promising to make Germany great again and making blanket statement that preyed upon hate and fears of OTHERS, who were a threat to German way of life, he rose to power. Trump has used those same tactics, preying upon xenophobia, hate, rage over the perceived loss of power to certain ethnic groups (early example: Mexican "murders and rapists" invading America and ruining it; Current example: people from eight Muslim countries are too dangerous to admit into the USA). Trump promised to "make America great again" with blanket statements condemning these OTHERS. No, he hasn't attempted genocide, but if a "Final Solution" is on his agenda, xenophobic rhetoric would be how he'll get a movement started. Hitler didn't start out yelling "KILL ALL THE JEWS IN THE WORLD," he did it all gradually so it became more and more acceptable to marginalize the Jews and then send them off to "camps." Hitler became a world leader with many of the same tactics Trump has used to become a world leader. And, no I'm not saying Trump actually is planning genocide, just pointing out similar tactics to gain power, and why the use of said tactics is alarming to some people.

 

 

All valid points but many leaders/dictators/jerks came into power using similar tactics. While I can see their point of view better from your well written response, I still don't see it, and hopefully never will. Trump is motivated by money, words to him are just a means to making money. I see Trump as a completely different beast, because mass genocide is no where near as profitable as long wars, or better yet trade agreements.

 

 

Along with having your own definition of liberal, you also want to be the one who decides what individual liberties will be protected, and which individual liberties will be discarded. I can't see much difference on what you believe is powerful.

 

Her comment was actually exactly what liberalism is.

 

Liberalism is a political philosophy or worldview founded on ideas of liberty and equality.^[1][2][3] Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but generally they support ideas and programmes such as freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, free markets, civil rights, democratic societies, secular governments, gender equality, and international cooperation.^{[4][5][6][7][8][9][10]}

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism

 

Left/Right doesn't necessarily equal Conservative/Liberal. 

 

 

 

Can't stop making shit up. This is what the left does most often. The founding fathers were rich dudes that didn't want to pay taxes to a Monarchy on the other side of the Atlantic. They wanted their own country, and their own government. The Constitution is a set of laws created to bind the states on common ground... it's not a political platform.

 

They were absolutely liberals. They're liberalism largely revolutionized the worlds politics. The constitution is the oldest liberal governing document in the world.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism#American_Revolution

 

Modern American liberalism and conservatism are both based on the classical liberalism. The only difference is views on markets and their interpretation of liberty. 

I agree with lysistrata, on his views on the founders of your country's founders.

Many want to believe that they were liberalls, but were they?

They were all rich and powerful, with the exception of maybe hamilton.

Check the facts before airing all kinds of comments.

 

But i don't agree with lys point glorifying the american second amendment.

The second amendment was one of the results of the founding fathers being rich and powerful.

Those times, only people like them had guns and they felt guns are their right and so created the second amendment.

Giving people right to bear arms is a fuse to a disaster.

It will only lead to racial violence, hate crimes etc.

 

Second, there is some validity between a Hitler/Trump comparison. Hitler and many Germans of his time were anti-semites. He recognized this and used hate and xenophobia to rally the downtrodden country to scapegoat Jews as the cause of many of Germany's woes. By promising to make Germany great again and making blanket statement that preyed upon hate and fears of OTHERS, who were a threat to German way of life, he rose to power. Trump has used those same tactics, preying upon xenophobia, hate, rage over the perceived loss of power to certain ethnic groups (early example: Mexican "murders and rapists" invading America and ruining it; Current example: people from eight Muslim countries are too dangerous to admit into the USA). Trump promised to "make America great again" with blanket statements condemning these OTHERS. No, he hasn't attempted genocide, but if a "Final Solution" is on his agenda, xenophobic rhetoric would be how he'll get a movement started. Hitler didn't start out yelling "KILL ALL THE JEWS IN THE WORLD," he did it all gradually so it became more and more acceptable to marginalize the Jews and then send them off to "camps." Hitler became a world leader with many of the same tactics Trump has used to become a world leader. And, no I'm not saying Trump actually is planning genocide, just pointing out similar tactics to gain power, and why the use of said tactics is alarming to some people.

 

 

All valid points but many leaders/dictators/jerks came into power using similar tactics. While I can see their point of view better from your well written response, I still don't see it, and hopefully never will. Trump is motivated by money, words to him are just a means to making money. I see Trump as a completely different beast, because mass genocide is no where near as profitable as long wars, or better yet trade agreements.

I think this is apropos: https://thenib.com/strength-through-unity?t=recent