Below is my column in The Hill on a shift in the rhetoric in the aftermath of the overturning of Roe v. Wade. From politicians to pundits, pro-life positions are being treated as virtual hate speech. The demonization of those with pro-life views is meant to cut off any debate on the basis or scope of abortion rights. It is the latest attack on free speech as critics seek to silence those with opposing views.
Here is the column:
With the Supreme Court’s overturn of Roe v. Wade, it is no longer enough to be pro-choice. Indeed, the term “pro-choice” has been declared harmful by the now ironically named “Pro-Choice Caucus.” Today, it seems you must be anti-pro-life to be truly pro-choice — and, across the country, pro-life viewpoints are being declared virtual hate speech.
We have seen this pattern before.
With the rise of the racial justice movement on campuses across the country in 2020, a mantra emerged that it was no longer enough to not be a racist, you must be anti-racist. As National Public Radio’s media critic explained, “you’ve got to be continually working towards equality for all races, striving to undo racism in your mind, your personal environment and the wider world.”
Similarly, after the court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, it seems, you must be anti-pro-life and stop others from voicing their views.
On Sunday, almost half of the University of Michigan’s incoming medical school class walked out of a “White Coat Ceremony” to protest keynote speaker Dr. Kristin Collier. Collier was not planning to discuss abortion, but — because she holds pro-life views — students launched an unsuccessful campaign to block her from speaking.
The cancel-campaign petition had the usual nod to free speech before calling for it to be gutted. According to the Michigan Daily, the petition — signed by hundreds of incoming, current and past students — declared that “while we support the rights of freedom of speech and religion, an anti-choice speaker as a representative of the University of Michigan undermines the University’s position on abortion and supports the non-universal, theology-rooted platform to restrict abortion access, an essential part of medical care.” In other words: We support a diversity of viewpoints so long as we don’t have to hear any opposing views.
Ironically, until four years ago, Collier was “a pro-choice atheist” who admitted that she had “great animosity towards those who held either pro-life views or deeply held religious commitments.” When she held those views, she was a celebrated professor with a long line of publications in peer-reviewed journals. She then had a conversion on the issue after speaking with a senior faculty colleague, Dr. William Chavey, a professor of family medicine who was pro-life — and she quickly became persona non grata.
She is not alone at the university. A week earlier, a campaign was launched to fire football head coach Jim Harbaugh after he declared, “I believe in having the courage to let the unborn be born.”
Harbaugh is accustomed to penalty calls for unnecessary roughness on the field, but nothing likely prepared him for what came next. While he is widely known to be a devout Catholic, his public statement of his values was considered an outrage by some and made his continuation as coach unacceptable to them, even though he just signed a five-year, $36.7 million contract.
In addition to calls for his termination, Harbaugh was accused of being “full of deep seething hatred of women” and “publicly expressing his distaste for women’s rights.” The liberal Palmer Report posted (with thousands of “likes”) that “no one who actively attempts to deny women their most basic rights should ever be allowed to hold a position of influence at a public university … He’s a public employee. Fire his ass.”
Actually, being a public employee is one reason Harbaugh was not fired. As a public university, Michigan is subject to the full weight of the First Amendment.
Many others are not protected like Harbaugh, however. Some pro-life workers face long, hard fights against companies eager to satisfy pro-choice advocates. In 2017, Charlene Carter, a former Southwest Airlines flight attendant, was fired for posting criticism of the Transportation Workers Union of America (TWU) and its president, Audrey Stone, for their pro-choice positions. Southwest allegedly told Carter that Stone and the union contacted the company and cited her comments as threatening or harassing; Southwest then fired her. Five years later, this month, she was awarded more than $5 million for her wrongful termination.
There is an obvious effort to portray pro-life views as inherently threatening, making most any countermeasures justified. Recently, some pro-life centers and churches have been attacked. Even some crisis pregnancy centers, offering support to pregnant women and alternatives to abortion, have been denounced as a threat to women. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) has declared that “crisis pregnancy centers … are there to fool people who are looking for pregnancy termination help. … We need to shut them down here in Massachusetts, and we need to shut them down all around the country. You should not be able to torture a pregnant person like that.”
Sen. Warren, Sen. Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii) and other Democrats in Congress have sponsored a bill that would shut such centers and hit charities with fines of $100,000 or “50 percent of the revenues earned by the ultimate parent entity” for violating the act’s “prohibition on disinformation” related to abortion.
Similar crackdowns are being pushed by some Democratic governors. Michigan’s Gov. Gretchen Whitmer (D) vetoed $20 million in funding for groups and advertising offering non-abortion resources and counseling. Such counseling efforts were denounced as “deceptive” attempts to “prey” on women.
While some activists have previously argued that pro-life views or advertisements like “abortion hurts women” constitute “hate speech,” the Supreme Court has refused to allow such laws as the Ku Klux Klan Act to be used against abortion protesters as being motivated by a “class-based, invidiously discriminatory animus.”
Demonizing pro-life viewpoints avoids the need to deal with abortion’s details. While a majority today support Roe, an even greater number support limits on abortion. A recent poll conducted by Harvard found that 72 percent of Americans would allow abortion only until the 15th week of pregnancy or support an even more restrictive law. That view transcends party affiliation; even 60 percent of Democrats believe abortion should be prohibited after the 15th week or a more restrictive limit.
Yet, clearly, some do not want to have a debate of the issue while pushing virtually absolute rights to abortion. It is far easier to attack those who voice pro-life views as monolithic, “theology-rooted” extremists. One benefit in being anti-pro-life is that you can be anti-free-speech — all in the name of being pro-choice.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. Follow him on Twitter @JonathanTurley.
The anti free speech movement is the Democratic Party‘s gift to America. Of all the offenses they have advocated (or perpetrated), the subjective restrictions on free speech are by far the most vile. This is what made me an Independent.
Racism is any opinion contrary to Democrats.
Hate speech is any opinion contrary to Democrats, and is equivalent to physical assault. Therefor, it’s noble to get polite conservative speakers cancelled, fired, or failing that, just scream right over them.
I don’t recognize the Democrat Party any longer. It used to be that I was fiscally conservative, but I could find common ground with Democrats. The Democrat Party moved far extreme Left, taking that common ground away. It’s now gotten to the point that it’s mainstream Democrat cannon that castrating and sterilizing children because they voice discomfort with puberty is laudable and criticizing this is hate speech.
I am convinced that future generations will look upon this extremism, and what I can only describe as severe child medical abuse, with horror. I’ve got to stick to my principles on this. I predict that when the transgender craze dies down, and mutilated children grow up into adults that file mass class action suits, that many supporters are going to back away and deny they ever supported it.
I mourn that I’ve become more polarized, but I cannot in good conscience ignore a party that normalizes racist slurs against black conservatives, who agitate to cancel black comedians, who require automatic affirmation of children who express discomfort in their gender or with puberty, placing them on the path for puberty blockers that were used to chemically castrate sex offenders, with serious side effects, and ultimately to sterilization.
Karen S.
You are on a tear!
Good on ya!
I would comment more, but I have a few cords of wood to stack.
I agree on everything you have said.
There is NO “mainstream Democrat cannon (sic–canon)” supporting “castrating and sterilizing children”. Children with gender dysphoria (something you endlessly harp about, so I wonder if your son idenfies as female) don’t “voice discomfort” with puberty–the changes in their bodies are psychologically distressing–to-wit: a boy growing breasts and having periods or a girl growing a beard. You know nothing about gender dysphoria. Democrats don’t favor anything regarding gender dysphoria OTHER THAN acceptance of people with this condition. NO ONE EVER castrates or sterillizes a child. That is NOT done. Gender reassignment surgery is ONLY done on adults, with informed consent, after years of extensive psychiatric evaluation establishing that it is the right thing to do. Before the age of 18, puberty-suppressing drugs are ONLY given after a psychiatrist confirms that the benefits outweigh the risks. Pubery suppression is totally reversible.Democrats have NO political position on gender dysphoria OTHER THAN acceptance of people for who they are. If Fox is telling you otherwise, it is lying to you. There is NO “trangender craze”, and people who have undergone gender reassignment surgery don’t feel “mutilated”.
The drugs used to stop puberty are in other contexts referred to as chemical castration.
Surgery to transform a man into a woman intro a woman – involves castration.
Transforming a woman into a man requires a mastectomy.
While I am 100% behind efforts to understand the human mind. Psychology remains a nascent science barely advanced to the level of blood letting.
Psychologists are no better at determining which criminals are likely to re-offend than ordinary people. Despite their education and skill, psychologists are as easily fooled by sociopaths as ordinary people – even when the psychologists KNOW they are dealing with sociopaths.
One of the problems with the left is that they confuse the pursuit of knowledge with actual knowledge.
We do not know infinitely more than we do know. And that is unlikely to change.
Our understanding of Gender dysphoria is primative. Claiming to be able to diagnose and treat it is idiocy.
We are bad at diagnosing many severe mental health disorders, And there are very few we can successfully treat.
This will improve over time – so long as we are open to what we do not know, and willing to abandon efforts that fail.
This is a massive problem that the left has with science today. you have converted it into religion.
Science is the pursuit of knowledge, it is the understanding of how little we know and how uncertain even that is.
Climate Science has been a massive disaster – because we have demanded more of science than it can deliver and because we keep trying to impose solutions by force to problems we can not prove are real.
We made similar mistakes with Covid. It is increasingly clear that our government public health experts did not have the knowledge or skill to do what the claimed they could.
And those of you on the left think you are not going to do more harm than good with “gender dysphoria” ?
I do not care what adults do with their own bodies – so long as they do not use force against others or harm others.
But we have societally dealt with children differently.
We do not allow children to make life altering decisions for themselves.
And we do not hold them to the same standards of accountability when they do.
We restrict when they can drink, go to war, vote, drive.
They are also barred from consenting to surgery on themselves.
What kind of nut are you.
There is currently no natural, psychological or medical means that results in a biological male ever menstruating.
Should we accept sociopaths – allowing them to defraud, rape, murder and torture others because of their mental health disorder ?
There has been an exponential spike in “gender dysphoria” – particularly among biological girls – and a concurrent radical decline in anorexia and Bulimia.
What has been obvious is that “gender dysphoria” – is less an independent psychologica condition – that a symptom of anxiety and depression – particularly in teens.
Other “symptoms” do not go away as a consequence of surgery.
Wise people would conclude that the real problem was not with gender.
Regardless, this is why we do not experiment on children.
“NO ONE EVER castrates or sterillizes a child. That is NOT done.” Of course they have – that is precisely what drugs that block sex hormones do.
“Gender reassignment surgery is ONLY done on adults, with informed consent, after years of extensive psychiatric evaluation establishing that it is the right thing to do. ”
This used to be the case. It is not anymore.
Regardless, with respect to adults – I do not care. What an adult patient and adult doctor freely agree to is their business.
I completely support the right of adults to do things I think are stupid – to themselves.
If you want to add breast implants or have a mastectomy, or inject heroine – that is your business – so long as you are an adult.
If as a doctor you perform surgery on a consenting adult – even if that surgery is a bad idea – that is still between you and your conscience.
The same is not true of children.
“Puberty suppression is totally reversible.”
Obviously false.
If the effects of sex hormones were not age dependent – 50 year old males would be able to develop the same breasts as women just be taking hormones and hormone blockers.
Th fact is that we know far more than enough to know your statement is false, and not nearly enough to know the actual long term consequences of this.
I would remind you that we actually created violent murders by misuse of SSRI’s in the past.
Hormones and hormone blockers have far stronger and less predictable impacts on people.
You are conducting experiments – little different from those of Dr. Mengele on children.
You do not know a fraction of what you think you do.
Which is the norm for the understanding of leftists and science.
All of this is an indication of how far our country has fallen. It is now populated by people largely of little character and no morals whatsoever. They’ve fed a diet of (non)equality for so long that they actually think they are morally superior when they are actually immoral to the point of almost being irredeemable. I fear this world I am going to leave behind soon is going to be condemned by the God that made us and destroyed like the planet that blew up in Guide to Hitchhiker in the Galaxy. The world is beyond all hope.
I find it interesting that “pro life” people oppose most programs that help actual human beings once they are born. WICA? Help women in need, cut it, food stamps? feed actual people that have a hard time affording rent and food? Cut it. Health care for veterans that served and had their health impacted? No way. So the “pro life” group is really the control women movement. If you’re pro life, be pro life.
I find it interesting that “pro life” people oppose most programs that help actual human beings once they are born.
While I’m certain you can find people across the Pro-Life, Pro-Abortion spectrum that oppose all sorts of things, you will find the most charitable among them to be Pro-Life. They do not oppose programs that support those less fortunate. What they do oppose are policies that end up forcing otherwise independent people to be dependent on the state. So no, the Pro-Life movement is not about controlling women, it’s about getting control of an out-of-control government.
Here’s one example:
But church members wanted to do more than just protect their building. They wanted to love their neighbors. Thus, they asked Portland Rescue Mission, a nonprofit that works with the homeless, for guidance on the best way to minister to the people who frequent the drug camp. “We want to help people who need help. And we wanted to have the right attitude about it,” insisted Bradshaw.
Lasting change will require a new attitude and probably new leadership in Portland. But in the meantime, the members of First Orthodox Presbyterian Church will have to cope as best they can.
https://thefederalist.com/2022/07/29/church-on-portlands-deadliest-block-cleans-up-drug-encampments-while-mayor-fixates-on-guns/
One part of the petition Professor Turley left out,
“We demand that UM stands in solidarity with us and selects a speaker whose values align with institutional policies, students, and the broader medical community.”
“We demand . . .”
I find that chilling.
These are the kind of students who would violate the Hippocratic Oath, deny care or do harm to others based off their ideologies.
Sound crazy or impossible?
It has already happened (ref: four year med student at Wake Forest University placed on extended leave after posting tweet she “suggested” she intentionally harmed a patient whom disagreed with her POV on transgenderism).
How many doctors refused to give care based on vaccination status?
What is also a shame is Vinay Prasad wrote about the topic and said they ” . . . missed a transcendent lecture about staying human in an age of machines.”
Upstatefarmer,
“ We demand that UM stands in solidarity with us and selects a speaker whose values align with institutional policies, students, and the broader medical community.”
“We demand . . .”
I find that chilling.
These are the kind of students who would violate the Hippocratic Oath, deny care or do harm to others based off their ideologies.”
Why would that be “chilling”? These are students of the school who PAID large sums of money for their education. They are the school’s customers are they not? Don’t they have a say on what they want from the school THEY paid to? Maybe that’s a perspective you haven’t considered.
It’s THEIR school supported by THEIR money. If they demanded better teachers or professors because they are not satisfied with the current ones don’t they have a right to make such a demand? They are paying the school and they have certain expectations. Why shouldn’t they be able to make demands? Just because they demand something doesn’t always mean the school will act on those demands.
Universities should defend professors and faculty from unreasonable demands and pressure from students when it’s obvious things have gone too far. But they also have to recognize that controversial views from professors or faculty despite being free speech doesn’t protect universities from the consequences of defending them. The constitution doesn’t protect universities and professors from angry students and their rhetoric which is also free speech.
The students you wish to protect are violating the other student’s rights to hear a variety of speakers. Not permitting students to listen is a violation of rights and the reason they pay money to go to the university.
Angry students are violating the rights of others with their actions. They have a right to be angry, protest, walk out, but they have no right to violate the rights of others. That is what you are promoting. The ability to violate, not the rights of the speaker, but the rights of others to listen. Those students should be removed from the university.
“ They have a right to be angry, protest, walk out, but they have no right to violate the rights of others. That is what you are promoting. The ability to violate, not the rights of the speaker, but the rights of others to listen.”
That’s not what I am saying. Your poor attempt to use a strawman argument is painfully obvious.
You would have better luck discussing what I actually said.
That is exactly what you are saying. When your leftists students prevent a speaker from speaking they deny the rights of the others to listen.
You call it a straw man argument because of your inability to conceptualize the meaning of rights.
“. . . because of your inability to conceptualize the meaning of rights.”
Well said.
You would have better luck discussing what I actually said.
That doesn’t actually work. Ever.
What you are saying is that the customer sets the terms of service. It would be no different than if they went to an auto repair shop and started demanding the operation do business the way they wanted or else they will shut it down; completely ignoring every other customer that also pays large sums of money for the business operation they do like.
Customer satisfaction is a goal, not a death sentence.
It’s THEIR school supported by THEIR money.
It’s no more their school than the auto repair shop is their shop. Their money buys them an agreed product and/or service. Unless their money is buying the business, then it’s just one customer of perhaps thousands that also paid money for an agreed product and/or service. And like any other business, if you don’t like the terms of service, take your money elsewhere.
Why would that be “chilling”? These are students of the school who PAID large sums of money for their education. They are the school’s customers are they not? Don’t they have a say on what they want from the school THEY paid to?
Universities have a very public mission statement. Part of a University education vs a trade school, is a broad exposure of ideas. Businesses hired University graduates because of that broad exposure. If all the student wants is a one note concerto, they can go to trade schools and internships to earn a liviing.
Our company stopped interviewing U of Missouri Grads after their campus erupted in group think. We don’t need programed idiots. We need educated people that can think for themselves.
Svelaz,
If I were the dean,
“You dont demand anything. Here is your money back, until you stop behaving like a petulant child and grow the F up, GTFO.”
That would be a better perspective.
“There is an obvious effort to portray pro-life views as inherently threatening”
This is what makes the left so amazing. They are the only ones who can take something (like killing human life) and label you as threatening because you are against it. The irony here is ridiculous.
Even the language of “pro choice” is silly since it includes everyone. They are really pro death.
That’s not what the pro-choice crowd is doing. They are portraying the pro-life crowd as those who are forcing their views into others because they don’t like the fact that others are capable of making decisions that they have no control over.
You wouldn’t accept anyone dictating how you should be raising your children or when others were dictating that you should wear a mask because you would be protecting someone else’s life. The pro-life crowd was adamant that nobody should be denying others the right to make their own decisions regarding masks because it’s their body. But ironically the very same mentality is perfectly ok when it comes to women because they shouldn’t be able to decide what they should do with their own bodies.
“ Even the language of “pro choice” is silly since it includes everyone. They are really pro death.”
No, it’s about one group forcing others to accept only one choice.
The pro-life crowd was adamant that nobody should be denying others the right to make their own decisions regarding masks because it’s their body.
Or more accurately. No evidence exists that masks work.
Your arguments fails because a fetus is not “a womens body” – it is a different living thing that is IN the woman’s body and dependant on the woman’s body. But it is not her body.
That does not automatically give it rights, nor subject it to protection by government. but it does vitiate the argument – “my body, my choice”.
I fully support the right of anyone to control of their own body – including removing a pregancy at anytime up to birth
But abortion is not the same as removal. A right to abortion includes a RIGHT to kill the fetus, not just the right to remove it – even if death results.
There is no constitutional right to kill
There is a constitutional right to control of your own body.
They can’t imprison/silence all of us. Just push back and never stop resisting their warped ideology. I have been waiting for someone, anyone to make a case that hate speech legislation is unconstitutional. Let us put an end to another of the prog/left’s tools of tyranny.
Music
There’s a hole in your rubber dear Georgie dear Georgie….
There’s a hole in your rubber dear Georgie a hole.
Then fix it dear Liza…dear Liza…dear Liza.
Then fix it dear Liza..dear Liza fix it!
I need some welfare…dear Georgie..dear Georgie..
I need my check ..I need my check!
Then I will stop screwing. Dear Liza..dear Liza.
I don’t want no babies and you need a job!
I used to be a yellow dog Democrat. That ended when JFK was assassinated and the Vietnam War killed millions of innocents and devastated our nation. More recently I have been reading and studying history, and not simply the normally accepted and acceptable narratives that permeate academia and the mainstream media. I am an independent- libertarian on geopolitical issues, and social democrat on others- such as infrastructure, education, housing, economic opportunity, anti-trust, etc. It is my choice, not one I would force on others, even though I think it would result in a stronger and more just society. Yet, what matters is critical thinking on issues backed up by solid, independently verifiable facts. To cut off debate and free interchange of ideas, or otherwise censor, or to put such social pressure on a person that they feel compelled to self censor is antithetical to a free society, self defeating, and guaranteed to lead to poor policies and decision making.
As for abortion- I am more of a free choice person until the fetus is viable and/or where the life of the mother is at risk, or she is a victim of rape or incest. My recollection (please correct me if I am wrong) is that the concurring opinion of Justice Harlan (one of our finest jurists) in Roe v. Wade was based on substantive due process- ironic since the present Supreme Court misuses that argument.
Professor Turley, you have been a voice of reason, and a highly knowledgeable and insightful commentator on the law in a country otherwise ruled by the power of special interests. I look forward to your articles.
Ed,
I would like to thank you for a well thought out, down to earth post.
It was refreshing.
@ed
I don’t have a WordPress account so i can’t like this properly – but I’m in the same boat. I do not recognize our federal government anymore. things were atrocious in the 60s and 70s, but that was a cakewalk compared to this. Appreciate your thoughts. Critical thinking is no longer a possibility with younger (and in some cases, older – TDS is a real phenomena, and there is no cure) generations. We have done everything in our power to squash that simple ability – people no longer grow up. Many millennials in their 40s are just as devoid of logic as they were in their teen years. it is indeed a problem. A big one.
Great post Ed!
Yet, what matters is critical thinking on issues backed up by solid, independently verifiable facts.
Therein lies the rub. While we can reasonably discuss the importance of critical-thinking, it is the fluidity of what a fact is that is undermining reasonable debate. Until yesterday, everyone knew how a recession was defined. Until Biden took office, everyone knew the definition of man and woman. Until 2020, everyone knew that rioting and arson were not mostly peaceful protests. Until, until, until.
Yuri Bezmenov warned us back in 1984 that we already had generations of Americans who, through Marxist active measures, were so demoralized, that facts no longer had any meaning to them. And nearly 40 years later, it’s only gotten worse.
Proof: Until yesterday, Wikipedia defined Recession as 2 quarters of negative GDP.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11060135/Wikipedia-SUSPENDS-edits-recession-page-woke-users-changed-definition-Bidens.html
Undermine trust in institutions and you march towards anarchy.
“Is Pro-Life Now Hate Speech?”
************************************
Answer: Of course, it’s hate speech. Anything and everything that offends the effete, tender (yet eminently virtuous) sensibilities of any member or “ally” of the Leftist death cult is by the cult’s very definition “hate speech.” For the record, its also homophobic, misogynistic, racist, anti-vegan, bigotted, fringe-thinking, extremist, obstructionist and to quote Steve Martin, “obsequious, purple, and clairvoyant.” Did I miss any?
And now for our logic fill-in-the-blank question: When something is defined as everything, the logic is that it is, in reality, ______________.
Bonus Essay: Lament and discuss how we raised such a bunch of exhibitionistic morons?
We all sound like broken records on this site, but Turley has shown time and time again that the progressives in democratic politics and in academia are vicious fascists who are no more tolerant than the Brownshirt thugs of the 1930s. There will have to be a reckoning sooner than later. And it might not be so peaceful
“We all sound like broken records on this site, but Turley has shown time and time again that the progressives in democratic politics and in academia are vicious fascists ….”
**************************************
And the best course is to keep showing it. Sunshine is the best disinfectant and scarerat!
The demonization of those with pro-life views is meant to cut off any debate on the basis or scope of abortion rights.
This is the cliff notes version of today’s posting.
I point this out at every free speech post. Democrats fail most of time in free and open exchange of ideas, and debate of the facts. To call the preservation of the most vulnerable lives, hate speech. Life is sacred. Start from that premise, and the world becomes a much more harmonious society.
RE:”The demonization of those with pro-life views is meant to cut off any debate on the basis or scope of abortion rights.” The hypocrisy in this issue is reflected more in the willingness of either side to accept a majority opinion as long as it is their own. There is a compromise attainable based upon reasonable and rational thought and the current state of the art and knowledge base in medical science. Unfortunately, neither side will yield. Pro-life should not stand for abolition. Pro-Choice should not stand for no limits. Both of these extremes are, at this writing, reflected in current state abortion laws.
There is a compromise attainable based upon reasonable and rational thought and the current state of the art and knowledge base in medical science.
Compromise is only attainable through debate in the political environment. Dobbs decision, identifies the place for the that political debate, is State Legislatures, as laid out in the Constitution.
For Democrat Fascists…anything that stands in their way is hate speech! The Gestapo….oops I mean DOJ and FBI will go after anyone in there way. And Protect any democrats even Hunter Biden regardless of how many crimes they commit! Democrats are fighting a covert CIVIL WAR against America
RE:”Democrats are fighting a covert CIVIL WAR against America..” When employing the term ‘Democrats’ one must not fail to remember that MC’s and Senators of that ilk retain their seats at the will of the electorate who support them. If the likes of an Adam Schiff is returned to D.C. in November therein hides The Fifth Column and the existential threat to this Constitutional Republic
Never thought I would long for the halcyon days of ‘political correctness’ during the Clinton years. It was annoying, but tame compared to today’s onslaught against free speech. The people pushing all of this simply aren’t well. No one of sound mind is capable of harboring and sustaining this level of hatred all the time. The tide may very well turn politically; I honestly don’t know what we do about the rabid, fascist, and violent leftists after that. This is becoming intractable.
No one of sound mind is capable of harboring and sustaining this level of hatred all the time.
A “sound mind” cannot. It’s “useful” if it’s also functionally idiotic. It takes effort to debate and humility to reasonably debate. The only thing Leftists need is physical stamina.
No one of sound mind is capable of harboring and sustaining this level of hatred all the time.
Follow the science. This is an absolute.
“ No one of sound mind is capable of harboring and sustaining this level of hatred all the time.”
Isn’t that what pro-life activists have sustained for decades? They had a hatred for abortion and the right to choose. That hatred went as far as murder and terrorism. It’s what kept pro-life supporters going. As long as abortion was legal and women had the ability to make a choice that no one else had a say in that hatred would persist.
The hatred among the religious zealots on the right is especially prevalent. So much that they are perfectly willing to prevent women from traveling or forcing 10 year olds to carry a pregnancy from a rape.
At this point you should realize progressives lost the ability to formulate cogent arguments at least a couple of decades ago. obama, for all his supposed intellect, never engaged in debate. This is not surprising.
What? He was a master debater! He was like a maniac in a field of straw men. And don’t forget this gem — “All respected ______________ (doctors, economists, etc) agree with me.” He managed to combine a naked appeal to authority with an ad hominem attack, i.e., all economists that didn’t agree with him were to be disrespected because they disagreed with him. Brilliant. Master. Debater.
When was the last time any of our politicians really had to engage in any debates? Lincoln?
obama, for all his supposed intellect, never engaged in debate.
Obama is such an empty suit. Grifter extraordinaire.
I think you meant Trump being the empty suit and grifter extraordinaire. It’s ok, Freudian slips happen.
I’ll put Trumps accomplishments up against Obama”s.
Obama NEVER did anything of note. Hell, even his autobiography was fiction, written by a ghost writer
Iowan2,
Are you not enjoying the benefits of Obamacare? Obama brought budget deficits and spending under control.
As for the ghost writing, Trump’s own autobiography was fiction too. Trump is incapable of making cogent sentences.
Nice comeback! Devoid of any of Obama’s accomplishment. Exactly what I said.
Obama passed the ACA which is a major accomplishment.
Obama passed the ACA which is a major accomplishment.
Sure was. And if it weren’t for Democrat accomplishments, we’d have energy independence, secure borders, a thriving economy and safety in our streets. Just to name a few of their accomplishments.
Olly, we did have energy independence when Obama was in office. We were exporting oil instead of importing it. We were producing more than we could consume.
Uh, Ok. That still leaves the Biden administration’s accomplishment of ending our status as a net exporter.
Svalaz is incorrect – according to government data.
That is not energy independence. That is one type of energy independence.
Not according to the government.
Acording to EIA.gov we reached eneregy independence in 2019.
And have not matched 2019 production since.
https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/us-energy-facts/imports-and-exports.php
Olly,
“ Uh, Ok. That still leaves the Biden administration’s accomplishment of ending our status as a net exporter.”
A Worldwide pandemic tends to do that. We had to export more because we were at capacity for refining oil. Then there’s the labor shortage and the slow opening of wells because of the low demand.
“A Worldwide pandemic tends to do that.”
The pandemic created a temporary oversupply situation that resulted in a DROP in prices.
“We had to export more because we were at capacity for refining oil.”
Both false and irrelevant.
The US imports very little if any refined oil. If you buy Diesel, or Gas in the US – it was refined HERE.
Imports and exports do not change the US capacity to refine crude.
The US has sufficient refining capacity – or can easily acquire it to handle the Keystone XL extension that Biden killed AND growth of Western Fracking.
There is not a consequential US refining problem.
“Then there’s the labor shortage”
False. The pandemic created a labor surplus, not shortage.
“the slow opening of wells because of the low demand.”
Obviously false – Prices rose, that means that demand was high.
You have zero understanding of the laws of supply and demand.
I post under the name “John B Say” – that is deliberately derived from “Jean Batiste Say” – the famous economist responsible for “Say’s law” – also known as the “law of supply and demand”.
In almost 200 years There have been only two known exceptions to the laws of supply and demand.
One is purely theoretical – it has never ever happened in the real world.
The other is some specific luxury goods, where the rarity of the good is a part of its value.
I would aslo suggest learning Coase’s law – which essentially says that whatever the problems of the economy to the extent govenrment has any role it is to reduce impediments to free markets – not increase them.
Or to put it in the context of the present – All the economic problems we are seeing under Biden are the consequences of government meddling.
“Inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomena” – Milton Friedman.
All the things you seek to blame – so called economic “shocks” – like the pandemic, or the war in russia, are at best temporary speed bumps to free markets that the laws of supply and demand will always solve and usually quickly – if government stays out of it.
Our so called “supply chain” issues are primarily failures at the port of Los Angeles – which handles about 40% of US imports.
Several factors caused those problems – the pandemic in china caused a brief delay in cargo ships leaving Shanghai followed by a rapid increase.
The fact that the port of Shanghai was capable of making up for delayed shipments in a short time should make it clear that there3 are rarely absolute limits on capacity.
The Port of Los Angeles has atleast 50% greater capacity than has been used – but that would require 3 shifts 7 days a week, and hiring more workers. All of which Unions opposed. In an actual free market unions only get their demands met when those demands are economically reasonable. These were not.
The next problems was CA laws regarding trucking. About 60% of the capacity of the Port of LA is transported by Train, and that was not impacted.
That is by far the most cost effective way to transport cargo long distances and the US has by far the best cargo Train system in the world.
No other nation comes close. But increasing train capacity is more difficult that increasing truck capacity.
Regardless CA imposed new regulations on Truckers that restricted the transport of the 40% of Port of LA goods that were moved by Truck.
We actually saw a free market response to all of this. The majority of cargo ships crossing the pacific to the US are monsterous and can not transit the Panama canal. This is because it is cheaper to ship cargo on monstor cargo ships.
But the backlog at port of LA resulted in the chinese seeking smaller containerships that could transit the panama canal – as well as sending some ships arround the cape. This resulted in shortages of cargo ships headed to other places int he world – like india and africa – creatingf shortages and raising prices there.
And as large numbers of smaller cargo ships have arrived at the east coast – we now have backups there.
All of this is ultimately self correcting – but it will do so faster if govenrment gets out of it.
PPACA was a waste of $2T/decade that accomplished nothing.
John B. Say,
The cost of health insurance premiums stabilized after years of double-digit growth. More people have access to affordable healthcare.
It made significant improvements that even republicans have noticed. They certainly don’t want to get rid of it. It’s not perfect but it’s better than it was.
“The cost of health insurance premiums stabilized after years of double-digit growth. More people have access to affordable healthcare.
It made significant improvements that even republicans have noticed. They certainly don’t want to get rid of it. It’s not perfect but it’s better than it was.”
Not according to Kaiser foundation.
Loot at the graphs it is impossible to identify when PPACA was passed or took effect.
Costs have been rising. Deductibles have been rising.
PPACA cost 2T and accomplished nothing.
BTW this was entirely predictable.
PPACA hasthe same problem all stupid entitlements have – once they become status quo they can not be ended.
They do not have to prove beneficial, we are just stuck wasting money on idiocy.
https://www.kff.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/FEATURE-IMAGE-Premiums-and-Deductibles-on-the-Rise_1-1.png
BTW the actual impact of PPACA has been MASSIVELY net negative.
It KILLED off all kinds of meaningful non-government efforts to reign in healthcare costs.
We were seeing affordable conceirge medicine outside of “the hamptons” we were seeing surgery centers with published prices at a fraction of what hospitals were charging.
Post PPACA this and other efforts to control costs died, and we saw massive consolidation in heatlh care.
We have fewer and fewer private doctors, few independent practices, everywhere we go we must deal with massive practices that are themselves parts of nationwide networks.
You did not get the cost savings you claim you did. And you will not.
You do not seem to understand – Only free markets actually reduce prices.
Price controls have NEVER worked anywhere.
I will make you a bet. Pick 10 raw material commodities that are NOT controlled by government, and I will bet you that a decade from now, adjusted for inflation, that the net cost of 1000 of each of those commodities today will be less than it is today.
Free markets work. Nothing else does.
I would note – this is a REQUIREMENT for economic growth.
Rising standard of living REQUIRES producing more value for less human effort.
If we can not do that – we will be poorer in the future.
I lost my great coverage when bammy care was installed by hook & crook. To get coverage to this very day is exceptionally costly with uber high deductibles and stupid high premiums. I work for a small company in a skilled trade. I see bums and illegals getting free this or that by the score. Govt insanity is healthcare defined and it’s running amok.
You are not alone – Obama’s promise that if you like your insurance you can keep it was a blatant lie.
You’re confused about how legislation is created.
It was an abysmal failure that did not decrease costs or improve healthcare.
Obamacare represents the difference between Trump’s oil policy and Biden’s oil policy.
Anonymous, it decreased costs. It also stabilized premium increases and increased the number of people with health insurance that is not junk.
Trump didn’t have an oil policy.
The obammy care spectacle did nothing of the sort. Myself and many friends lost good coverage , good plans . Our costs skyrocketed to support those on the dole ….again. And the coverage is junk when the deductibles alone are as huge as they are across the bammy care spectrum. And now illegal aliens are getting their feet wet on our dime with bammy care….. that’s so wrong !.
You are wrong, and can’t provide examples. Karen has told you numerous times what happened to her premiums, but your mind can’t absorb that. This happened to many. We became a poorer nation in part because of Obamacare. When it comes to specifics, you know nothing and don’t even know it.
“Trump didn’t have an oil policy.”
Imagine that. Trump didn’t have an oil policy but made us energy independent and kept gas prices down.
Biden has an energy policy and is causing or will cause:
High gas prices
Inflation
Poor economic conditions
famine and food shortages.
Brain-dead people don’t recognize these things so don’t feel bad. You are one of many poorly informed people, though even in that category, you are less informed than most.
” it decreased costs. It also stabilized premium increases and increased the number of people with health insurance that is not junk.”
False – based on the actual real world data.
Further obviously false based on the laws of economics.
Price controls do not work.
They violate the laws of supply and demand,
They also violate Coases law.
If you want the closest possible to optimal outcomes, that is accomplished by reducing market friction – not increasing it as nearly all regulation does.
You spent $2T to make things worse.
In fact you made them much worse. PPACA has resulted in destructive changes in the healthcare marketplace that will be incredibly difficult to ever fix.
It is thwarted the development of new means of providing medical care that were more efficient, superior, and cheaper than PPACA – such as subscription medicine. It has increased moral hazzard, it has resulted in massive consolidation in healthcare – which destroys competition and has resulted in increased healthcare costs – not decreases.
You really do not understand that PPACA is just Socialism in drag, and Socialism DOES NOT WORK.
“Are you not enjoying the benefits of Obamacare?”
There are no consequential benefits. Massive spending (though increasingly the numbers congress throw arround make PPACA look like chicken feed) and no comensurate benefit.
What have you gotten from PPACA that is worth 2T ?
“Obama brought budget deficits and spending under control.”
Nope, to the extent that there was any control that was due to congressional republicans
Regardless the average deficit under Bush was 200B, the Average under Obama just under 1T
The high under Bush 442B the high under Obama 1.4T
The low under Bush -128B the high 459B
John B. Say,
“ What have you gotten from PPACA that is worth 2T ?”
Stable long-term premiums with minimal increases for years. Better access to services that were added costs before ACA. My insurance deductible has shrunk in the last two years.
More people have access to health care and more particularly more people have insurance.
“ Regardless the average deficit under Bush was 200B, the Average under Obama just under 1T
The high under Bush 442B the high under Obama 1.4T
The low under Bush -128B the high 459B”
Nice try. Obama had to deal with Bush’s deficit and the housing market crash that happened under his watch. Obama had to deal with a forced budget deficit in the first two years which he successfully brought under control and kept it there. Leaving out the fact that bush left the housing market mess to Obama conveniently leaves out the proper context of that situation. Like I said, nice try.
“Stable long-term premiums with minimal increases for years. Better access to services that were added costs before ACA.”
I provided the data – this claim of yours is FALSE. And that falsity has cost us all $2T/decade.
That is $6000 for every man woman and child in the US.
“My insurance deductible has shrunk in the last two years.”
Good for you – the rest of us paid for that.
BTW PPACA was passed a decade ago – not two years.
Regardless, as I have noted with EB repeatedly – annecdotal information is a basis for further inquiry.
It is rarely evidence and never trumps actual data. I provided you with the links.
Actual deductables have been rising for a long time – before and after PPACA.
PPACA did not slow the rate of increase for ANYTHING health insurance related,
Premiums continued to rise as fast or faster, deductibles rose as fast or faster.
“More people have access to health care and more particularly more people have insurance.”
Not really true and not relevant. Everyone had healthcare before and after.
“ Regardless the average deficit under Bush was 200B, the Average under Obama just under 1T
The high under Bush 442B the high under Obama 1.4T
The low under Bush -128B the high 459B”
“Nice try. Obama had to deal with Bush’s deficit”
False. deficits are specific to each president they are responsible for submitting their own budgets.
“and the housing market crash that happened under his watch.”
The housing market collapse occured in 2006 under Bush.
The “financial crisis” occured in the summer of 2008 under Bush.
Numerous poor decisions by Congress, and Bush, and the SEC made the financial crisis much worse than it had to be.
While there was going to be a recession no matter what as a consequence of the housing bubble bursting.
The specific lockup of the financial system that occured starting is Sept 2008 was entirely the consequence of bad government choices.
In Nov 2007 Bassill II required financial systems to change their capital valuation to Mark To Market. This was disasterously stupid and guaranteed that ANY recession would cause a credit seizure as the regulatory value of required capital reserves collapsed.
The stupidity of this can be seen from the fact that Tarp I failed – no financial institution accepted the governments offer to buy MBS’s at market prices – or even slightly above market prices.
The financial industry is not stupid – they understood that all those MBS’s whose value had collapsed – would ultimately return to their original value – and they did.
It is also Self evident from what occured with AIG – AIG provided essentially insurance for the MBS’s – Financial institutions could have demanded that AIG reimburse them for a substantial portion of their loses. This is why it was widely reported that the largest “insolvancy” in the financial markets was AIG – yet AIG also refused to be bailed out – and were essentially forced in to Tarp II by force.
They were compelled to borrow from the government billions they did not need – which they rapidly repaid – because they never needed them. No one ever tried to collact on AIG’s “insurance of MBS’s – because AIG’s “insurance” was structured much Like TARP I.
AIG would buy the MBS’s at a reduced value and give the banks cash. Again the Banks did not want to sell their MBS’s.
Nor is this all that govenrment did wrong. The SEC suspended short selling in the summer of 2008. Short Selling contra to left wing nuts is a stabilizing force, not a destabalizing one – it tells investors whether the market value of a product is correct. Without short selling – the market panics – which it did. Further the Government sent mixed messages to the financial community – they bailed out several financial institutions – starting in March 2008, but when Lehman was in trouble they did not intervene – which was not what the market expected and on top of all the other issues above caused a HUGE panic and the seizure of credit.
As I noted before – there was going to be a recession no matter what. The collapse of the housing bubble insured that.
You can not remove a couple of Trillion dollars from the economy overnight without a recession.
But the specific horrendous way the financial crisis took place is ENTIRELY the fault of bad governance and would not have happened in an actual free market.
Had Banks not been forced to revalue their capital reserves -= they would not have been regulatorially insolvent – they were NEVER actually insolvent. They always had more assets than liabilities. They just did not have sufficient Liquid assets at current market values to meet regulatory requirements.
The only GOOD action taken by govenrment was the Federal reserve increasing its lending of cash to banks. That is what unseized credit. And that had nothing to do with TARP.
Regardless, as a consequence of all these govenrment istakes the recession hit much faster and more severely than it would have otherwise. The worst of the recession was over before Obama took office. The Technical “bottom” was in Q2 2009 – but Q2 was only 40B smaller than Q1 – in otherwords next to nothing. Recovery was well under way in the middle of Q2 2009.
The ARRA was finally law in Feb 2009 – but any meaningful effect on the economy would not occur until the recovery was well under way.
Decent economic analysis of ARRA was that it did more harm than good. It suffered from many of the same problems that Covid stimulus did – it is not possible for govenrment to quickly spend the money needed to correct economic problems in exactly the paces that it needs spent and nowhere else. Only free markets have that kind of knowledge.
Regardless ARRA only explains abotu 1/2 of the 2009 deficit – how do you explain the rest ? or the huge deficits for the following years ?
It was a myth in 2009 to beleive that govenrment spending can correct economic problems.
Just as it was a myth in 2020 (and 2021 and now 2022).
The scale of the error in 2009 was smaller than that today – that is why we have near double digit inflation today.
We are likely facing a worse problem today than in 2008. We are officially in recession. Many of us knew this was coming long ago, and knew we were in it in the Q2. We are in the midst of the market crash, the crash in Growth – but unemployment always lags significantly behind.
Lots of my business has been showing problems since the start of the year – and I am in a leading indicator vertical.
several weeks ago I laid off more than 1.2 my W2 staff and reduced the hours of the rest. The same is happening throughout my industry.
And democrats are doing everything possible to make this worse.
I hope right now that everything I know about the economy is wrong.
But unfortunately that is not likely.
Even if this is a mild recession – which is unlikely – things will be very bad between now and november.
Further the fact this is coincident with an election – will make it worse. The period leading into an election is ALWAYS bad for the economy. Sometimes things turn around immediately after the election – we saw that in 2016 – we appeared to be headed into a recession in the fall, but the economy reversed within days of Trump being elected.
My own best guess is that we are looking at something worse than the 1980 recession – which is the best model for this.
The FED has been sluggish to react – though they are doing the right thing. That sluggishness will make this last much longer.
Democrats are already trying to spend more money and raise taxes – which is always a bad idea, but could not be timed to do more economic damage.
“Obama had to deal with a forced budget deficit in the first two years which he successfully brought under control and kept it there.”
False – as noted above – more than half the deficit in 2009 was the consequence of ARRA – which Obama passed and was an unnecescary mistake.
The 2010 and later deficts were entirely his.
Further the subsequent reduced deficits were entirely the result of the Sequester, which was a republican measure that they unfortunately traded away for nothing in 2015.
“Leaving out the fact that bush left the housing market mess to Obama conveniently leaves out the proper context of that situation. Like I said, nice try.”
Again check your facts. Bush did leave Obama a mess – though the housing crisis was over by 2008. Further, Obama took office at almost the perfect time for a president – near the BOTTOM of a recession – there was nowhere to go but up.
And Obama had the worst recovery from a recession since the great depression. For pretty much exactly the same reasons.
You can not spend your way out of a recession.
Please learn some economics.
Thomas Sowell has an excellent book “Basic Economics”
https://www.amazon.com/Basic-Economics-Thomas-Sowell/dp/0465060730
Hazlitt’s Economics in one lesson is available for free as a PDF online – just google it.
Or just read and understand Coases law – you can find that on Wikipedia.
Of course you would have to understand it.
But then Coase is just formalizing Adam Smith 200 years earlier
“Little else is requisite to carry a state to the highest degree of opulence from the lowest barbarism, but peace, easy taxes, and a tolerable administration of justice; all the rest being brought about by the natural course of things. All governments which thwart this natural course, which force things into another channel, or which endeavour to arrest the progress of society at a particular point, are unnatural, and to support themselves are obliged to be oppressive and tyrannical.”
He was debating all the time. Trump couldn’t formulate cogent sentences.
Trump couldn’t formulate cogent sentences.
That’s chutzpah as we watch the current resident of 1700 Pennsylvania Ave, that cant READ a cogent sentence from a teleprompter. There used to be a twitter account by the handle of ‘Obama’s teleprompter’ . It mocked the fact that the smartest man ever, couldn’t deliver a 90 second statement without a teleprompter.
Iowan2,
Grumpy bear can’t read. Here’s proof in all its glory.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=58DQr7i_OKo
Tell me what your saying, I dont chase youtube. I’m a reader.
“ while we support the rights of freedom of speech and religion, an anti-choice speaker as a representative of the University of Michigan undermines the University’s position on abortion and supports the non-universal, theology-rooted platform to restrict abortion access, an essential part of medical care.” In other words: We support a diversity of viewpoints so long as we don’t have to hear any opposing views.”
No, that’s not what they are saying. Turley in his rush to feed the rage and spout more his hypocrisy with free speech issues completely missed the point.
Freedom of speech is NOT a right to be heard. It’s not a violation of one’s freedom of speech when others don’t want to be hear the speaker. In fact walking out in protest IS a freedom of speech activity as well. Too many on the right confuse freedom of speech as a right to be heard. Freedom of speech is exactly what it says. The ability to freely express your views, opinions, objections, criticisms, etc. Nobody, nobody is required to hear what you say. Those on the right constantly conflate criticism as censorship and cry foul claim some sort of victimhood.
The “anti-pro life” label is not a thing. It’s just Turley finding some one off criticism from one individual or group and using as brush to paint the left as broad as possible to feed the rage of the most gullible and naive readers on his blog.
Svelaz, it is amazing how you get it entirely wrong almost every time. Yesterday it was “why should the DOJ investigate when there is no proof of a crime” and today it is a defense of “we are all for free speech, but we will not countenance this speaker at our event”. Yes of course they have the right to walk out of a speech, to not hear said speech, but prior to the speech they tried to get the speaker banned…see the difference? The left, with full support of Svelaz, doesn’t just not want to hear dissenting points of view, they want to shut it down.
The right hates CNN and MSNBC, we don’t watch it. the left hates Fox News and they try to ban it. They have tried to have boycotts of advertisers of Tucker, Hannity and Ingraham. They have called on cable companies to pull Fox off of their line-ups. Just yesterday climate losers tried to block entrances to the BI-PARTISAN congressional baseball game. They want Jim Harbaugh fired, they want Justice Thomas impeached, they force Kavanaugh out of a restaurant. Now we have defender of the indefensible Sevlaz saying basically, hey these kids have the right to leave the arena for a speech. Straw man argument by a straw mind, nobody is saying they don’t have to listen to something they abhor, but we all know it goes deeper than that and that the fascism is right on their shoulders.
Hullbobby,
“ but prior to the speech they tried to get the speaker banned…see the difference? The left, with full support of Svelaz, doesn’t just not want to hear dissenting points of view, they want to shut it down.”
Nothing in the constitution protects private individuals from other private individuals wanting to shut them down. Calls to ban someone or cancel someone are themselves exercises of free speech. The act of calling for censorship, bans, termination, etc. are in themselves free speech. This isn’t exclusive of the left, the right is just as prolific or worse. The biggest difference is that those on the right who are anti-free speech are government officials vs. private individuals on the left.
Look at what’s happening in Florida. The governor and the Republican legislators are actively punishing and censoring those who have a different point of view. Particularly those who they deem “woke”. The right is on a hot streak banning books because they don’t want other’s points of view to be accessible, it’s the anti-free speech Turley often rails about.
“ Now we have defender of the indefensible Sevlaz saying basically, hey these kids have the right to leave the arena for a speech. ”
It’s wholly defensible. They DO have the right to leave if they don’t agree with the views of the speaker. What many on the right keep getting confused on is that freedom of speech is NOT a right to be heard. It’s not a right to an audience and it’s also not protection from the consequences of exercising the right which often involves objection and demands that the person be shut down, even heckling, jeering, or being shouted down.
The 1st amendment’s freedom of speech is protection from GOVERNMENT infringement. Not from private infringement. This is why companies and even private individuals CAN censor, terminate, ban, or force you to curtail your views. This applies to the right AND left.
“Look at what’s happening in Florida. “
Don’t just sit there and complain. Tell us what is wrong with Florida removing rights from Disney it doesn’t provide the rest of the business community. What makes Disney so special that it is able to live outside of Florida’s Constitution and laws?
Anonymous,
“ Don’t just sit there and complain. Tell us what is wrong with Florida removing rights from Disney it doesn’t provide the rest of the business community. What makes Disney so special that it is able to live outside of Florida’s Constitution and laws?”
Disney isn’t “living outside of Florida’s constitution and laws”.
Disney was punished solely because they expressed criticism of the Governor’s “don’t say gay bill”. They were punished because Disney had the audacity to exercise it’s freedom of speech. What Florida did is a direct violation of the 1st amendment. Furthermore Florida passed a law forbidding private companies from discussing equality and gender discrimination on their private property.
That’s anti-free speech.
This should be a lay down for you: provide a link to any Florida bill, law, legislation, statute that uses the phrase or even implies don’t say gay.
Now, that’s not a strawman or a twisting of your words. Those are your words and you should have no problem backing them up.
“ This should be a lay down for you: provide a link to any Florida bill, law, legislation, statute that uses the phrase or even implies don’t say gay.”
Only, you know full well that’s how the legislation is commonly referred to. I never claimed it says that.
you know full well that’s how the legislation is commonly referred to. I never claimed it says that.
Among sane people, it’s commonly called The Parental Rights in Education Act. In Lefty-world, like nearly everything else they assert, it’s commonly described by what they feel it should be called. Now if those sane people chose to express how they feel the bill should be called, it would likely be the Don’t Groom My Children Act. Even then, it would be closer to the truth than the lie told by Disney and others.
Olly says,
“ Among sane people, it’s commonly called The Parental Rights in Education Act. In Lefty-world, like nearly everything else they assert, it’s commonly described by what they feel it should be called. ”
Sure, it has an official name. But it’s still better known as the “don’t say gay bill”
You know, like in the righty-world the ACA was always called “Obamacare”. Only the sane called it the ACA.
You know, like in the righty-world the ACA was always called “Obamacare”.
That however was rooted in truth. Unless of course you’re claiming Obama had nothing to do with it.
While some conservatives used the term obamacare derogatorily. Democrats used the term with pride.
Regardless, the term obamacare is widely accepted.
Left wing nut labels are not.
“Sure, it has an official name. But it’s still better known as the “don’t say gay bill””
Only by left wing nuts.
PPACA was called ObamaCare – both by those on the left and the Right.
Democrats and Obama were proud of PPACA. ObamaCare is not a uniquely right label for PPACA.
Nor is it inherently derogatory.
ObamaCare is not the name of the law – but it is a name that is not on its face derogatory, nor on its face inaccurate.
In this instance – the left is not labeling based on feelings, they are doing so to deliberately deceive.
Recognizing this is important.
The left likes to portray itself as more moral than the rest of us – based on purported good intentions without concern for actual consequences.
Bu there are no good intentions here. Just outright deliberate lying.
Those on the left “commonly refer” to all kinds of things using fraudulent language.
I am surprised you have no called the FL law, racist, sexist, and xenophobic – as those epitaphs are “commonly” bandied about without meaning by the left.
Further – because the left refers to something a specific way – does not make it true, or common.
As Olly correctly noted – the label YOU claim is commonly applied to the FL law, is also a LIE.
Those of you on the left whig out about misgendering – but aparently mislabeling is OK when you do it
RE:”Those on the left “commonly refer” to all kinds of things using fraudulent language.” ‘Catch phrases’ are common tool and are not reserved for us by any specific entity. It’s the paucity of political ethics in the promulgation of law which needs to be condemned. The electorate never knows the specifics of the language and the provisions. In consideration of a matter under heated debate herein, find the original ‘Affordable Care Act’ and take the time to read the language of the law which had to be passed before its contents could be known. You will be interested in knowing what It provided before it was handed over the the bureaucrats who decided how it was to be administered.
I am not interested in the details of PPACA.
It was a stupid idea – before learning of the additional problems in the fine print.
The key lesson to the 20th century is that government control of institutions, markets. healthcare, insurance always performs much worse than free markets.
With respect to PPACA we can see the consequences – we do not need to read the text.
As ALWAYS when government bullies its way into the domain of free markets – of free individuals.
Things get worse.
And they have.
You mangle logic.
Special changes in law permitted Disney to be outside the law that normal businesses function under. It was legally done and now it is legally reversed. Now that we handled all the legalities we can get back to the question.
“Tell us what is wrong with Florida removing rights from Disney it doesn’t provide the rest of the business community.”
What DeSantis did has been considered for decades. Disney went against Florida families. That provided those that wanted to end Disney’s special accommodations to do what should have been done years ago.
Anonymous,
“ Special changes in law permitted Disney to be outside the law that normal businesses function under. It was legally done and now it is legally reversed.”
LOL!! It wasn’t outside the law at all. Those “special changes” were within the law that was specifically created by the Florida legislature. It was within the law.
The only reason that “special law” was rescinded was that the governor was upset that Disney dared to use its free speech right to criticize a law that affected their employees. Florida directly violated their 1st amendment right by punishing them.
“ What DeSantis did has been considered for decades. Disney went against Florida families. ”
No, they didn’t. You’re a liar. Disney criticized the law and Florida PUNISHED them because of it.
“ Tell us what is wrong with Florida removing rights from Disney it doesn’t provide the rest of the business community.”
That special right they had benefited the community. When Florida took it away those communities were suddenly responsible for a billion dollars of debt that the law specifically stated once the right was revoked.
You have no idea what you are talking about.
That quirk in law was created for Disney…and Disney abused that trust and it has been withdrawn. Boo Hoo. Words and actions have consequences. Disney ran it’s gob…and then the bill came do. Perks given can be perks taken away. Too bad for Disney putting woke politics over their customers. Done , now move on already.
You are an idiot. The laws were changed for Disney, but not changed for other businesses.
That is why I repeated the phrase, “Tell us what is wrong with Florida removing rights from Disney it doesn’t provide the rest of the business community.”
That is the question at hand you cannot answer. Instead you “LOL” like the fool you are.
“No, they didn’t. You’re a liar.:
Do you think no one questioned why Disney should be exempted from certain laws and rules when others weren’t? This has been talked about for years, but you are too stupid to know better. Even some people on the left before DeSantis was governor felt Disney shouldn’t have these privileges.
“You have no idea what you are talking about.”
I do because everything you said is wrong. I don’t expect anything better. Many people have commented on the stupidity coming from you. It will never change.
Anonymous (S. Meyer),
“ Do you think no one questioned why Disney should be exempted from certain laws and rules when others weren’t?”
Nobody questioned it. You’re still a liar. The only reason Florida revoked that special status for Disney was because they were critical of the governor’s “don’t say gay bill”. They were punished because Disney exercised its 1st amendment right.
The Florida legislature gave Disney that status so they could manage the park effectively and it benefited the communities around it. Nobody was questioning it. You’re simply lying.
“Nobody questioned” Disneys special status before DeSantis? You are an idiot that talks without knowledge. Government should not favor one business over another. Disney was not punished. It’s favored business status was revoked because Disney entered a political arena that was against the people of Florida especially families with children. Was it a convenient time to end the favorable treatment? Yes.
When you take something you don’t deserve be careful insulting the person who gives it to you.
The Florida Legislature made the deal to get a large corporation established in Florida. It was good for Florida and it was good for Disney. With time the reasons behind giving Disney special status declined in value for Florida. When Disney became political and “threatening” children Floridians became angry. What the legislature can give, they can also take back.
You are not happy with th De Santis bill meant to protect K-3rd grade children and their parents from abuse. That you wish to abuse children below the age of nine is disgusting. It demonstrates a lack of mora value, but that is where you set your flag. That is a stupid position.
RE:”When Disney became political and “threatening” children Floridians became angry.. Notwithstanding whatever opinions one might hold, Here’s ‘the joy’ that spurred the backlash here in Florida, and the ensuing legislation divesting Disney of its privilege. https://m.facebook.com/watch/?v=926219684712188&_rdr
“Nobody questioned” Disney’s special status before DeSantis? You are an idiot who talks without knowledge. Government should not favor one business over another. Disney was not punished. Its favored business status was revoked because Disney entered a political arena that was against the people of Florida, especially families with children. Was it a convenient time to end the favorable treatment? Yes.
When you take something you don’t deserve, be careful not to insult the person who gives it to you.
The Florida Legislature made the deal to get a large corporation established in Florida. It was good for Florida, and it was good for Disney. With time the reasons behind giving Disney special status declined in value for Florida. When Disney became political and “threatening” to Florida’s children, Floridians became angry. What the legislature can give, they can also take back.
You are not happy with the De Santis bill meant to protect K-3rd grade children and their parents from abuse. That you wish to abuse children below the age of nine is disgusting. It demonstrates a lack of moral value, but that is where you set your flag. That is a stupid position.
SM
You rush to accuse someone of lying – based on YOUR attempted mind reading.
FL did revoke Disney’s special Status because they fought against legislation to stop schools from sexualizing kids that was broadly supported in FL.
Calling that Legislation the “don’t say gay bill” – is the perfect example of the dishonesty of the left.
Legislation discriminating against homosexuals or transsexuals in education would violate Title 9 according to the most recent Supreme Court decision authored by Justice Gorsuch.
The FL law is neutral – it does not discriminate.
It does bar teachers from initiating communications about sexual issues with students prior to 4th grade.
Students are still free to come to teachers with evidence of abuse, and teachers are still obligated to report it.
I generally support being open with Kids about sex in an age appropriate way.
At the same time schools MUST be controlled by Parents – not teachers.
Schools are responsible for a LIMITED portion of the education of children.
Something that they do poorly, and should focus on doing better.
We do not need more legislators like AOC who are incapable of math or critical thinking
but fully indoctrinated in the latest inter-sectional Marxism.
It is incredibly weird that the left is desperate to politically and sexually indoctrinate children
but has no interest in assuring they have the actual skills necessary to thrive as adults
I would separately note that after family, the single largest group of child predators is teachers.
Why would you oppose making it more difficult for teachers to sexually abuse children ?
“The Florida legislature gave Disney that status so they could manage the park effectively”
False. While the FL legislation for Disney was unique, special preferences for businesses are never provided so that businesses can function more effectively. They are provided so that Businesses will choose to locate to that community.
This is bad practice and we should find a way to end it nationally. While communities should compete to draw businesses.
They should not do so by offering special concessions to specific businesses. That is corrupt.
FL should never have offered Disney special status.
“and it benefited the communities around it.”
At the expense of other communities in FL.
“Nobody was questioning it. You’re simply lying.”
I have been questioning government offering special preferences to businesses for decades.
This is not a first amendment issue. Punishment requires infringing on a right – not taking away a special privilege.
Disney remains free to speak out as they wish.
Overall this was an incredibly stupid mistake on Disney’s part. A business whose core product is for children, is risking far more than losing its
special privileges by advocating for sexualizing children.
The quality of Disney and other US entertainment is declining as that industry fixates on woke nonsense.
one of he most damning indictments of “wokeism” is its inability to mix its ideological values and compelling stories that appeal to people.
I do not personally care how many inter-sectional groups you cram into a story. I do not care if you make the story about some inter-sectional conflict.
But I care greatly if the result is unentertaining and unwatchable.
And separately – I do care when this has to do with kids. As do myriads of other parents.
You can make white women feel guilty about their own purported privilege, but the entire equality agenda falls apart when it coalesces around THEIR kids. Every parent wants the BEST they can get for THEIR kids.
Every parent understands Adam Smith when it is about THEIR kids.
We survive and thrive because with the exception of when we use force against others,, actingf in our own self interest nearly always greatly benefits others.
You are Fed because Farmers seek to personal profit from farming
So you support special privildges for some and not for others ?
You are correct that the special status of Disney was “within the law” – atleast in the sense that law was passed that exempted disney from complying with other law.
You fail to grasp that terminating that special status was also “within the law”.
Should Dredd Scott or Plessey still be the law of the land ?
Is the 14th amendment improper because it reverses decades even centuries of prior law ?
It was wrong to ever give Disney 0r any other companies special status.
I would support federal law or even a constitutional amendment barring the federal govenrment or states from providing benefits to one entity that are not shared by others – the equal protection clause should already do that. SCOTUS has already ruled that States can not constitutionally provide funds to all schools – and then exclude religious schools.
Of course ending Disney’s special status was a punishment.
But it was not a violation of a right.
Absolutely it had effects. The citizens of FL were no longer subsidizing Disney.
As to your claims of inherited debt – the courts will have to sort that out.
Regardless, communities in FL can not inherit Debt from Disney without also inheriting the asset securing that debt,.
Further those communities also have their power to levy taxes to pay for the debt restored.
Nothing in the constitution protects private individuals from other private individuals wanting to shut them down
You keep arguing with yourself.
What is being discussed here is free speech. AND the left does not stop with ignoring speech they don’t like. They demand the speech be silenced. Demand that speakers be banned. Because leftist are scared to death, cogent rational ideas, will expose the idiocy of their ideology. You just admitted the fact.
Iowan2,
“ They demand the speech be silenced. Demand that speakers be banned.”
They can demand all they want. It’s also THEIR free speech right. Private individuals demanding speech be silenced is not a 1st amendment violation.
The 1st amendment does NOT prohibit private individuals from silencing or banning others speech. It only applies to GOVERNMENT.
You can speak about anything you want. It’s certainly your protected right. You’re not entitled to an audience.
“ Because leftist are scared to death, cogent rational ideas, will expose the idiocy of their ideology.”
Nope, they are just exercising their own right speak as well and demanding itself is not silencing someone or banning someone. It’s just a demand.
“They can demand all they want. It’s also THEIR free speech right. Private individuals demanding speech be silenced is not a 1st amendment violation.
The 1st amendment does NOT prohibit private individuals from silencing or banning others speech. It only applies to GOVERNMENT.”
Incorrect. NO ONE is EVER free to use FORCE to silence others.
Further private actors are ALWAYS bound by the commitments they made to clients. ether as part of their TOS or as part of their marketing.
Twitter as an example famously promised to be THE free speech platform for the world, and clients relyed on that promise.
Reniging is not so easy as changing your terms of service.
Next, universally private actors are required to adhere to their Terms of Service consistently.
They can not ban one political point of view and not another – unless their terms of service explicitly allow that.
Private businesses would not survive long if they revised their TOS’s to allow censoring one political view and not another.
Private actors can censor a variety of different things – but they must do so with consistency.
Next, Defamation is always barred – publicly censoring someone is defamation. Inconsistancy in censoring is defamation.
Editorial remarks – whether as part of censorship or independently can be defamation.
S230 of the DMCA protects social media companies from liability for publishing the defamatory remarks of others.
It does not and can not protect them from responsibility for their OWN defamatory content.
With respect to Social media – you ARE entitled to the audience you paid for – as in advertising.
If a social media company offers advertisements, it must deliver on that offer.
Next, you appear to be under the delusion that SM companies OWN audiences.
If I choose to floow another poster on SM – I chose to be their audience – the SM company did no.
But they DID promise that I could choose to be a member of whatever audiences I prefered.
Put simply – SM companies do not own their clients – even within SM they are independent actors
Just as people are free to speak as they wish, they are also free to listen to what they wish.
There are no provisions in the TOS’s that I am not free to follow whoever I wish,
You are correct that no one has the right to an audience.
Nor does anyone have the right to control the audience.
I choose to speak in a public forum, you choose to listen. No third party can forceably silence me or close your ears.
“Nope, they are just exercising their own right speak as well and demanding itself is not silencing someone or banning someone. It’s just a demand.”
I can not make any sense of this.
A demand alone is not silencing someone – Acting on that demand is.
Those of you on the left are free to demand whatever you wish.
You are not free to get it, in fact quite often giving you what you have demanded is immoral, illegal and unconstitutional.
This should be obvious,
You are free to demand the same things from government as you do from private actors.
But government is NOT free to give in to your demands to censor others.
You are right. They do not have to listen. However, it demonstrates a shocking lack of maturity to refuse to listen to opposing views, particularly in a science field like medicine. Each one of those doctor wannabes should be bounced from the program. They have a freedom of speech right to protest, but the school has a right to bounce unfit doctors who refuse to listen. These petulant cry babies need to start to feel consequences for their intolerance.
supports the non-universal, theology-rooted platform to restrict abortion access
All of our laws are based on protecting human life.
The left just draws an arbitrary line at the end of the birth canal. Logic dictates line drawing is nothing but rationalization enabling some to kill babies so they have time to make partner. Finish law school, still fit into their Senior Prom dress.
RE:” In fact walking out in protest IS a freedom of speech activity as well” Agreed! However, times have shown that it just doesn’t end there with that lot. Does it. Live and let live is not their strong suit. It has come to ‘our way or the highway’.
Does it. Live and let live is not their strong suit.
“Silence is violence”
Only full throated advocacy is accepted. Anything less is a crime.
Anything that goes against the extreme leftist hive mind is considered “hate speech” to hive minded totalitarian bigots, they hate it therefore it’s hate speech.
The totalitarian hive minded have four tenants of truth…
1. The hive mind is right.
2. Opposition to the hive mind is wrong.
3. Wrong is evil.
4. Evil must be destroyed.
That’s the end of critical thinking for the totalitarian hive mind.
It’s Borg like.
I have one simple question? Who wants to continue living in a country like that? I certainly don’t. That’s why I left.
Where did you go? There is some kind of crazy everywhere in the world right now.
Witherspoon, you’re overreacting. You could say the same thing about the right however.
Anti-abortion activists were just as extreme with their labeling and rhetoric.
The right resorts to violence and even murder in the abortion debate. A doctor was murdered in his own church and that was their level of hate towards those who expressed their pro-choice views. You could say they were against free speech as well.
A doctor was murdered in his own church and that was their level of hate towards those who expressed their pro-choice
Going to label half the population by the actions of a fraction of a fraction?
That would mean Democrats tried to assassinate 3 supreme court Justices. Democrats also hunted down the entire Republican Baseball team, to assassinate them.
You mean a Mengele-like baby murderer? Abortion is not the same as, say, raising taxes on the rich. It involves life, and the destruction of life, or at least potential life. Unless you accept the most extreme pro-choice position of unlimited right to abortion until time of birth, which most people don’t, then there is some murdering of the innocent going on. Some are bound to see that as evil. It is an issue that involves complicated competing interests (mother, child, society) that requires nuance and compromise, but at the same time the black/white life/death nature of the issue resists nuance.
RE: “You could say the same thing about the right however.” Cherry picking in rebuttal does not obviate Hullbobby’s observations, and the examples he cites,that “The left…… doesn’t just not want to hear dissenting points of view, they want to shut it down. The ‘Cancel Culture Gestapo’ and its minions is a manifestation of the ‘Blue Pill’ Ideology seeking absolute control.
The basis for what this column is all about is to be seen at the end of the column: “72% of Americans would allow abortions only up until the 15th week….” This is why the left wants to ban discussion of the actual topic. This is what the left does, they take a very radical and unpopular idea, see CRT, abortion up till birth, defund the cops, open borders, men playing in women’s sports, drag time reading lessons, and drastic climate measures, and then try to foist them on the populace all the while demanding that anyone who disagrees with any of these insane ideas is a racist, homophobe, transphobe, climate denier, misogynist etc etc.
When your ideas aren’t tolerable you need to bring in the fascism, the goons, the censors and the kids on the front lines. Whistle down a speaker, block entrances to a venue, sit on the highway, threaten justices and force people out of restaurants, professorships, jobs and society.
RE:”The madding crowds will make it what they will. The political establishmenst will set their sails to whatever wind returns them to office. The lemmings will follow blindly over the cliff.
I am so tired of lefty tyranny.
Not enough for them to have acceptance of their views (contrary to propaganda, abortions are still legal in many states – Colorado mothers can kill their children right up to birth).
Lefties want to crush the opposition so that there can be no debate ever again.
We won the last battle; lefties are preparing for the next war.