How Dare They Hold Up That Sign?

Advocate wrote:

I didn't intend to insult you. I was just passing on my thought.

In what world, are comparisons to Bush not an insult?

C'mon. Also, you didn't answer the question. And it was a good one. Why is it okay for one group to only consider the law (and not the feelings of others) when making decisions, but not okay for others?

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Advocate wrote:
I didn't intend to insult you. I was just passing on my thought.

In what world, are comparisons to Bush not an insult?

C'mon. Also, you didn't answer the question. And it was a good one. Why is it okay for one group to only consider the law (and not the feelings of others) when making decisions, but not okay for others?

Cycloptichorn

Frankly, I haven't given much thought to this. Moreover, I am not sure that many are offended when a private group excludes them.

However, I am offended that the Congressional Black Caucas excludes nonblacks. This is especially ironic inasmuch the caucas is all about inclusion. White congressmen with black constituences have tried unsuccessfully to join.

I might mention that there are many, many, female groups, including colleges, that exclude males.

For the most part, it is probably a good thing that private groups can be exclusive.

0 Replies

Why are we on this tangent?

Joe(more like a ricochet...)Nation

0 Replies

A rather normal phenomenon in forums, no?

0 Replies

revel wrote:

dadpad wrote:
I have to keep reminding myself;

There are 300 million Americans. They cant all be idiots...... can they?

American Research Group, Inc.

Quote:
A total of 64% of American voters say that President George W. Bush has abused his powers as president. Of the 64%, 14% (9% of all voters) say the abuses are not serious enough to warrant impeachment, 33% (21% of all voters) say the abuses rise to the level of impeachable offenses, but he should not be impeached, and 53% (34% of all voters) say the abuses rise to the level of impeachable offenses and Mr. Bush should be impeached and removed from office.

What kind of sense does that make? 64% of the voters think George Bush has abused his powers but only 34% of the voters think he should be impeached and removed from office. About as much sense as voting him a second term I guess. A lot of us are idiots; we have tolerated Bush even though we believe he has committed acts considered abuse of his office. Maybe its because we know if Bush is impeached; Cheney will just be there. I don't know if it is possible to impeach the both of them.

Maybe we'll just throw them in jail after they leave office. Maybe we'll just try to humiliate them and write their chapters in history books with disgust.......I would rather do something much more effective and meaningful that simple impeachment.

0 Replies

Advocate wrote:

As much as I despise Bush, the sign had no place at a bridge gathering.

What is next? Should pro football players unfurl political banners at halftime?

As you probably know, the First Amendment applies only to government.

How about church? Like in Evangelical churches.........does it belong there? Hummmmmmmmm.

0 Replies

As I understand it, the women were jokingly communicating with other players who had been teasing them during the games about Bush and their affiliation with him. I doubt they thought of it as a big political statement.

If there hadn't been such a big _uc_ing deal made of it, no one would have noticed, except a few highly accomplished bridge players at the tournament. In the meantime, this is the livelihood of these women. All I can do is shake my head in disbelief. I sure would like to do more than that......

0 Replies

I will never understand the American mindset.

0 Replies

Well, there you have it, Lola, those women were having fun. They were having fun and winning the Venice Cup and they were having a little goof on their competitors, all suspect actions in a world of righteousness.

BTW, I think I was wrong. I said a few posts back that I didn't think Bush's backers realize just how much damage he has done to America's standing in the world. Now I have changed my mind.

The actions against the bridge players indicates that they do know.
Many times people try to cover embarrassment with anger.

Joe(so it is in this case.)Nation

0 Replies

Joe Nation wrote:

Well, there you have it, Lola, those women were having fun. They were having fun and winning the Venice Cup and they were having a little goof on their competitors, all suspect actions in a world of righteousness.

BTW, I think I was wrong. I said a few posts back that I didn't think Bush's backers realize just how much damage he has done to America's standing in the world. Now I have changed my mind.

The actions against the bridge players indicates that they do know.
Many times people try to cover embarrassment with anger.

Joe(so it is in this case.)Nation

Or guilt or shame or greed.........anger is good for so many things. Then there are the masochists. Shame for anger, pain for pleasure......It's such a complicated world. In any case, the bridge powers that be are mean and we don't like them, do we? He He Here's to having fun. I wish it hadn't cost the bridge players so much.

Hi Joe

0 Replies

Hi, yourself.

It shouldn't have cost them anything.

Joe(what do you call a sport that isn't fun at some level?)Nation

0 Replies

Joe Nation wrote:

Joe(what do you call a sport that isn't fun at some level?)Nation

Joe(a job)Nation

0 Replies

Heh.

Any morning that I got up to go to work and I said to myself "This isn't any fun any more." I'd go in and quit. Work I can always get.

I spent my forties working in the winters and riding my bicycle in the summers. It's not mature but I have to have a little fun in my work. I think everybody does.

Look at the faces of the hardest working sports enthusiast, the Olympic weightlifter, the pro-football player, the designated hitter in a baseball game---the pressure is on---but when the weights hit the floor, a new first down is declared, a line drive double to right is hit--- you can see the same joy on those faces as you see on a two year old the first time they take a stab at a rolling ball and catch it. That's joy, baby. That's fun.

I imagine (because I don't play bridge) that it must be the same for them when a bid goes just right and the cards fall in line as the helpless opponents watch.

Joe(that's why they call it playing)Nation

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Well, in this society we generally distinguish between physical harm and disagreeing with someone's opinion.

Provided that I am not directly inciting physical harm upon someone, I - and anyone - are perfectly free to say what we like. I am not obliged to consider whether you want me to say it, in any way.

Cycloptichorn

You are perfectly free to say what you like about me. And I am perfectly free to sue your happy little ass if you commit slander or libel.

Of course there are other limitations on your right to free speech -- by the government -- that do not involve physical harm. For example, your rights to obscene speech and child pornography, are curtailed. Your use of "fighting words" is proscribed. If you make a fraudulent claim in advertising your widget for sale, you are subject to sanctions by the government. If I have copyrighted my work, you are not free to infringe my copyright. And your use of hate speech is restricted, whether you are "directly inciting physical harm upon someone" or not.

I'm sure there are more ...

0 Replies

Joe Nation wrote:

Some bridge players got upset at the CONTENT of the sign,and sent a lot of emails as is their right, but it is they would prodded the bridge players leadership into making this mountain out of a bump a on log.

What this kind of action does is promote the feeling that we should watch what we are saying because certain people might be listening. That idea in UnAmerican, undemocratic but unfortunately not unheard of since the rise of the radical right and their authoritarian ways. (Think Ari Fleischer)

What's UnAmerican about it? That there might be ramifications and repercussions to what one says, is not new. In fact, I submit that to restrict the ramifications and repercussions would be UnAmerican.

0 Replies

"To restrict the ramifications...would be unAmerican..."

Shocked

haveta get backatcha on that...

0 Replies

Lola wrote:

Advocate wrote:
As much as I despise Bush, the sign had no place at a bridge gathering.

What is next? Should pro football players unfurl political banners at halftime?

As you probably know, the First Amendment applies only to government.

How about church? Like in Evangelical churches.........does it belong there? Hummmmmmmmm.

A church risks its very valuable 501c3 status when it engages in political action. However, IRS has a difficult time enforcing this.

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
Well, in this society we generally distinguish between physical harm and disagreeing with someone's opinion.

Provided that I am not directly inciting physical harm upon someone, I - and anyone - are perfectly free to say what we like. I am not obliged to consider whether you want me to say it, in any way.

Cycloptichorn

You are perfectly free to say what you like about me. And I am perfectly free to sue your happy little ass if you commit slander or libel.

Of course there are other limitations on your right to free speech -- by the government -- that do not involve physical harm. For example, your rights to obscene speech and child pornography, are curtailed. Your use of "fighting words" is proscribed. If you make a fraudulent claim in advertising your widget for sale, you are subject to sanctions by the government. If I have copyrighted my work, you are not free to infringe my copyright. And your use of hate speech is restricted, whether you are "directly inciting physical harm upon someone" or not.

I'm sure there are more ...

But prior restraint would violate the First Amendment.

0 Replies

Advocate wrote:

Lola wrote:
Advocate wrote:
As much as I despise Bush, the sign had no place at a bridge gathering.

What is next? Should pro football players unfurl political banners at halftime?

As you probably know, the First Amendment applies only to government.

How about church? Like in Evangelical churches.........does it belong there? Hummmmmmmmm.

A church risks its very valuable 501c3 status when it engages in political action. However, IRS has a difficult time enforcing this.

That's right and political speech in Evangelical churchs goes a long way past holding up a sign declaring what a group of five did not do. It is un-American to restrict freedom of speech in that (as advocate points out) it violates the 1st amendment. But, oh well, that's just the silly ole Constitution. Who pays attention to that useless document anymore?

0 Replies

Lola wrote:

Advocate wrote:
Lola wrote:
Advocate wrote:
As much as I despise Bush, the sign had no place at a bridge gathering.

What is next? Should pro football players unfurl political banners at halftime?

As you probably know, the First Amendment applies only to government.

How about church? Like in Evangelical churches.........does it belong there? Hummmmmmmmm.

A church risks its very valuable 501c3 status when it engages in political action. However, IRS has a difficult time enforcing this.

That's right and political speech in Evangelical churchs goes a long way past holding up a sign declaring what a group of five did not do. It is un-American to restrict freedom of speech in that (as advocate points out) it violates the 1st amendment. But, oh well, that's just the silly ole Constitution. Who pays attention to that useless document anymore?

It does NOT violate the first amendment if a PRIVATE organization restricts what its members say or do while representing that organization.

0 Replies

How Dare They Hold Up That Sign?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know