Especially high-drag, no thrust zero files like a ‘journalism professor’.
I’m tired of the mentality that someone commits a crime and therefore others freedom needs to be restricted.
A park district near me has a sign posted listing its rules. The first rules are the ordinary expected rules regarding opening and closing times. The rules listed further down in the list are suspiciously specific, and far more ridiculous. For example, Rule #24 is “No person shall throw dead animals within the boundaries of a park or playground.” I don’t know if this is a reasonable rule or not, but you just know someone committed a crime involving throwing a dead animal, and then all of us had our freedom restricted.
“Anything not authorized is forbidden!”
The start of the road to serfdom.
You have to get a vasectomy because your neighbor is having too many kids.
Oh, but if a dead animal is turned into some sort of ball that makes it legal? I thought this was America!
You invite all sorts of Afghan refugees to American and then wonder whose been playing headless-goat polo in the city park.
The second protects the first and you would think someone who makes their living off of the first would have a greater respect for our rights. But then again, this professor is probably fine with censorship, even though he uses language that he would want censored if directed at people he approves of.
I think when it comes to guns, or PC language, or views toward religions, Democrat’s beliefs come from the negative stereotypes of the groups and individuals that they view as political enemies. It doesn’t matter what the activity is, if the people they view as the other that must be suppressed engages in it, then the activity will be portrayed as the greatest moral sin.
I haven’t seen much desire from the left, particularly academia, to protect the first. Indeed, I’m noticing a growing interest to degenerate much of the Bill of Rights.
We have hate laws that were to augment other existing laws and now are used to restrict free speech.
We have a MeToo movement and abuse of Title IX that resulted in people being deemed guilty until proven innocent. And now we have politicians gleefully suggesting that a prosecutor’s job is to exonerate a person.
We had a government that used fake evidence to obtain a warrant to track, monitor a person, and steal personal information and nobody has gone to jail for it because most of the media and a minority of politicians think it is no big deal.
What I want interesting is that when I talk to people in person; they see what I see and are upset and growing more pissed off. I’m starting to see life long Democrats start to take notice and get offended. After all, you can’t rationally except that a prosecutor exonerates individuals and be supportive of black lives matter, as Kamala Harris is learning.
Especially high-drag, no thrust zero files like a ‘journalism professor’.
I’m tired of the mentality that someone commits a crime and therefore others freedom needs to be restricted.
A park district near me has a sign posted listing its rules. The first rules are the ordinary expected rules regarding opening and closing times. The rules listed further down in the list are suspiciously specific, and far more ridiculous. For example, Rule #24 is “No person shall throw dead animals within the boundaries of a park or playground.” I don’t know if this is a reasonable rule or not, but you just know someone committed a crime involving throwing a dead animal, and then all of us had our freedom restricted.
“Anything not authorized is forbidden!”
The start of the road to serfdom.
You have to get a vasectomy because your neighbor is having too many kids.
Oh, but if a dead animal is turned into some sort of ball that makes it legal? I thought this was America!
You invite all sorts of Afghan refugees to American and then wonder whose been playing headless-goat polo in the city park.
The second protects the first and you would think someone who makes their living off of the first would have a greater respect for our rights. But then again, this professor is probably fine with censorship, even though he uses language that he would want censored if directed at people he approves of.
I think when it comes to guns, or PC language, or views toward religions, Democrat’s beliefs come from the negative stereotypes of the groups and individuals that they view as political enemies. It doesn’t matter what the activity is, if the people they view as the other that must be suppressed engages in it, then the activity will be portrayed as the greatest moral sin.
I haven’t seen much desire from the left, particularly academia, to protect the first. Indeed, I’m noticing a growing interest to degenerate much of the Bill of Rights.
We have hate laws that were to augment other existing laws and now are used to restrict free speech.
We have a MeToo movement and abuse of Title IX that resulted in people being deemed guilty until proven innocent. And now we have politicians gleefully suggesting that a prosecutor’s job is to exonerate a person.
We had a government that used fake evidence to obtain a warrant to track, monitor a person, and steal personal information and nobody has gone to jail for it because most of the media and a minority of politicians think it is no big deal.
What I want interesting is that when I talk to people in person; they see what I see and are upset and growing more pissed off. I’m starting to see life long Democrats start to take notice and get offended. After all, you can’t rationally except that a prosecutor exonerates individuals and be supportive of black lives matter, as Kamala Harris is learning.