ADVERTISEMENT

Can someone give examples of the Left legislators trying to enact laws to silent the Right?

Did Jody Barrett vote no as far as the 2 black dudes? If he voted yes for the 2 black dudes and no for the white lady, that is racism on his part for sure.
OMFG dude, no it isn't. There weren't issues on the resolutions for the other two. JHC man, you see only what you want to see.
 
OMFG dude, no it isn't. There weren't issues on the resolutions for the other two. JHC man, you see only what you want to see.
What are you talking about as far as resolutions? The simply voted to remove 3 people for doing the same thing. 2 got voted out and one remained. What was Barrett’s vote on the 2 that was removed?What issues on the resolutions are you talking about?
 
So, what is the "real" reason the white lady did not get removed? The optics don't look good for the republicans no matter how you look or spin it. Just goes back to my assessment that 90% of republicans are racists.
What percentage of Democrats are racist in your opinion?
 
Totally true, but is that not the point of this thread? The OP asked for times when conservative/rightwing people are silenced because he was not aware of any such instances. You have made my point- they are not wanted so they must be kept away. Why not just do not attend and listen to them if you disagree with them? What happened to diversity of thought and opinions on campuses? This is when young minds should be exposed to a range of thought so they can decide what they believe in. If you only hear one side then you will likely believe the only thing you are hearing, which is everything that mostly progressive faculty is going to be dispensing over your years at college.

This is precisely why conservative speakers are not welcome. The left fears, no, they know that if exposed to such ideas a certain percentage of young, impressionable minds will see some truth there and maybe start to question some of the progressive ideas they have been spoon-fed through the educational process.

There is likely never a speaker on any university campus that EVERYONE wants to be there. But everyone who is invited by a valid organization or unit of the school should be given the respect of being heard. If you don't want to hear it, stay away. But you have no right to decide what others choose to hear. If no one shows up, then further speakers of that persuasion are likely not to bother showing again. They should never be driven off by disrespect or threats of violence.

Let me turn this around on you and your woke posse, Tedward. There are numerous examples of conservative speakers denied the chance to speak freely on a college or university campus. Give us one example of a liberal/progressive/woke speaker denied that right.

You are on the clock. Go.
You took a lot of words to say "my head is lodged permanently in Ben Shapiro's anus." Take it out and you can learn something.


 
You took a lot of words to say "my head is lodged permanently in Ben Shapiro's anus." Take it out and you can learn something.


You know, I was responding to you in a constructive and respectful manner. No name calling or derogatory comments. Why is it so difficult for you to give me the same courtesy? Because this is the same treatment people you disagree with get everywhere any more. The only free speech for people like you is total agreement- nothing more, nothing less.
Two thoughts and I am done with you (yeah, spare me the crocodile tears- huh?). You are not looking for discussion, are you? Just anything to try to make Ted look tough and in charge.

Different people have different opinions as to what is "offensive and racially charged". The raison d'etre for this thread is that very point, which you are proving every day on this board. Instead of talk we get blasted as racists- which according to Mr BNI we all are on here, except for you select few correct thinkers. You know who you are. And as racists, anything we say or do is beyond suspect- it convicts us and confirm our status as white supremacists and race mongers. I would tend to think my definition of offensive and racially charged would be somewhat at variance with a professor at Georgetown U.

Then the concept that conservatives being mistreated on college campuses is covered thoroughly by the MSM and similar issues of liberal speakers and professors being punished or discharged not being covered- does that raise a red flag anywhere in your mind? Conservative malfeasance is an accepted trope by the MSM- we are targeted everyday and every way. Reporting conservative speakers being shouted down is considered letting people know how despicable these guys are and look, these courageous students are standing up to them. Not covering the woke wing getting their angel wings clipped is perhaps because the things they say and do might ring warning bells in the minds of many middle of the road voters who might think they are not comfortable with those kind of opinions running universities and educating their kids. Tell these folks only what they need to know.

So maybe more libs do get punished (but there are so many more of them to begin with it is a much smaller %-age of the whole) but the conservatives get more coverage, making us more aware of it, for the above reasons.

No response is necessary. I wrote this for others on this thread who might read it in the spirit in which I wrote it. I realize I am still way up the an*s of Ben Shapiro as you so quaintly put it, which all these many words do not dispel. I would never credit you as flexible, Ted, except I can not explain in any other fashion how you are able to get your head so far up your own an*s. You are truly a wonder! (see, always finish with a compliment- that is how you win friends and influence people)
 
  • Like
Reactions: BoilerHuff3
What are you talking about as far as resolutions? The simply voted to remove 3 people for doing the same thing. 2 got voted out and one remained. What was Barrett’s vote on the 2 that was removed?What issues on the resolutions are you talking about?
Wrong. There were three separate resolutions written up as to why each should have been expelled. They tacked on to her resolution things that she didn't do that the other two did do. THAT'S why Barrett didn't vote her out. He did vote the others out because there were no issues on their documents. They broke with decorum in a major way and they voted on removal.

BTW have you ever looked at a photo of the Tennessee house representatives? It's VERY diverse, so this idea that it was a racist removal also doesn't hold water from that front. This is what we mean by you being indoctrinated. They have you seeing racism where it doesn't exist.

 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: BoilerHuff3
Those people that you say don't have power get speakers cancelled all the time.

Huh? They have power to pass laws that get speakers in jail. I am looking at other countries like China. They can legally arrest anyone who speaks against the government on the ground of harming national security. I'd think those kind of power are more dangerous than "cancelling a speaker."
 
Takeaway?
The fringes of political bias from either side have the potential to be unreasonable, misguided, anti-free speech, over-reactionary, more than a little racist, and just plain wrong-minded.

Agreed.

But while you are at it, can you give me some examples of Democratic legislators using their power to silence the opposition? Thanks.
 
  • Like
Reactions: HoosierfanJM
Wrong. There were three separate resolutions written up as to why each should have been expelled. They tacked on to her resolution things that she didn't do that the other two did do. THAT'S why Barrett didn't vote her out. He did vote the others out because there were no issues on their documents. They broke with decorum in a major way and they voted on removal.

BTW have you ever looked at a photo of the Tennessee house representatives? It's VERY diverse, so this idea that it was a racist removal also doesn't hold water from that front. This is what we mean by you being indoctrinated. They have you seeing racism where it doesn't exist.

Dude, that is one of the most amount of BS that I ever heard. Y'all can twist yourselves into knots to avoid being labeled racist. The mere fact that they had a vote for removal was racist in of itself. Censure would have been the best punishment FOR ALL 3 than what they attempted to do.

As far as diverse. Tennessee is no different than most states as far as a diverse state legislature. I can puck any midwestern state and find similar diversity. Here in Indiana and like most states, they will have black, Hispanic or any other people of color representing the larger metropolitan cities. These folks will be mostly Democrats. Tennesse is no different. The 2 Tennessee legislators in question are from Nashville and Memphis which have a large black population. Not to mention Knoxville, Chattanooga, etc. So of course it's going to be diverse. What do you want a cookie?
 
  • Like
Reactions: charlespig
Huh? They have power to pass laws that get speakers in jail. I am looking at other countries like China. They can legally arrest anyone who speaks against the government on the ground of harming national security. I'd think those kind of power are more dangerous than "cancelling a speaker."
I didn't claim that they were more dangerous. Just pointing out that your claim that they have no power is incorrect.
 
Dude, that is one of the most amount of BS that I ever heard. Y'all can twist yourselves into knots to avoid being labeled racist. The mere fact that they had a vote for removal was racist in of itself. Censure would have been the best punishment FOR ALL 3 than what they attempted to do.

As far as diverse. Tennessee is no different than most states as far as a diverse state legislature. I can puck any midwestern state and find similar diversity. Here in Indiana and like most states, they will have black, Hispanic or any other people of color representing the larger metropolitan cities. These folks will be mostly Democrats. Tennesse is no different. The 2 Tennessee legislators in question are from Nashville and Memphis which have a large black population. Not to mention Knoxville, Chattanooga, etc. So of course it's going to be diverse. What do you want a cookie?
So the simple fact that it only took one extra vote to remove the woman and she wasn't removed because they attributed things to her that she didn't do, is racism.

The only person getting twisted into knots is YOU. You have NO evidence that this was an act of racism other than the two that were expelled were black. NONE. I pointed out actual documents AND voice recordings that prove that it had nothing to do with racism, and you're response is to say I'm twisted in knots. **** off if you want to remain this dumb.




 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: BoilerHuff3
You know, I was responding to you in a constructive and respectful manner. No name calling or derogatory comments. Why is it so difficult for you to give me the same courtesy? Because this is the same treatment people you disagree with get everywhere any more. The only free speech for people like you is total agreement- nothing more, nothing less.
Two thoughts and I am done with you (yeah, spare me the crocodile tears- huh?). You are not looking for discussion, are you? Just anything to try to make Ted look tough and in charge.

Different people have different opinions as to what is "offensive and racially charged". The raison d'etre for this thread is that very point, which you are proving every day on this board. Instead of talk we get blasted as racists- which according to Mr BNI we all are on here, except for you select few correct thinkers. You know who you are. And as racists, anything we say or do is beyond suspect- it convicts us and confirm our status as white supremacists and race mongers. I would tend to think my definition of offensive and racially charged would be somewhat at variance with a professor at Georgetown U.

Then the concept that conservatives being mistreated on college campuses is covered thoroughly by the MSM and similar issues of liberal speakers and professors being punished or discharged not being covered- does that raise a red flag anywhere in your mind? Conservative malfeasance is an accepted trope by the MSM- we are targeted everyday and every way. Reporting conservative speakers being shouted down is considered letting people know how despicable these guys are and look, these courageous students are standing up to them. Not covering the woke wing getting their angel wings clipped is perhaps because the things they say and do might ring warning bells in the minds of many middle of the road voters who might think they are not comfortable with those kind of opinions running universities and educating their kids. Tell these folks only what they need to know.

So maybe more libs do get punished (but there are so many more of them to begin with it is a much smaller %-age of the whole) but the conservatives get more coverage, making us more aware of it, for the above reasons.

No response is necessary. I wrote this for others on this thread who might read it in the spirit in which I wrote it. I realize I am still way up the an*s of Ben Shapiro as you so quaintly put it, which all these many words do not dispel. I would never credit you as flexible, Ted, except I can not explain in any other fashion how you are able to get your head so far up your own an*s. You are truly a wonder! (see, always finish with a compliment- that is how you win friends and influence people)
I feel like all this effort would be better spent talking to your kids.
 
So what is your estimation of the percentage of democrats that are racist? And I’m not taking about racial biases.
I really don’t know, but it’s a lot higher than 10%. The percentage is most likely to be about the same for either party.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Boilermaker03
Dude, a straight white male probably endures more racism today in this country than a black person.
A perfect example of how the echo chambers on both sides cause people to reach mind boggling conclusions. The constant arguments cause people to entrench themselves so deeply into their position they have nowhere to go but more extreme.
 
Wow.

Taking lack of self-awareness to an extraordinary, whole new level.

That is an incredibly ignorant statement.
Says the oblivious lib who exercised his white male dem privilege to speak on behalf of a black man - with no understanding or acknowledgement that he had done so.

Likewise, Bob.
 
Says the oblivious lib who exercised his white male dem privilege to speak on behalf of a black man - with no understanding or acknowledgement that he had done so.

Likewise, Bob.
Rather than re-cycle the same trite, uniformed, insults you throw out in many posts, tell us--do you agree with his statement:

"Dude, a straight white male probably endures more racism today in this country than a black person."
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: charlespig
Rather than re-cycle the same trite, uniformed, insults you throw out in many posts, tell us--do you agree with his statement:

"Dude, a straight white male probably endures more racism today in this country than a black person."
No more than I agree with the total lack of self-awareness in your pompous, totally self-unaware statement, "Taking lack of self-awareness to an extraordinary, whole new level."
 
Last edited:
No more than I agree with the total lack of self-awareness in you pompous, totally self-unaware statement, "Taking lack of self-awareness to an extraordinary, whole new level."
200w.webp


You did not answer the very straightforward question I'll repeat it for you:

Do you agree with his statement?

"Dude, a straight white male probably endures more racism today in this country than a black person."

I can answer it in a straightforward way for you as an example: "No, I do not agree with that statement."
 
  • Like
Reactions: charlespig
200w.webp


You did not answer the very straightforward question I'll repeat it for you:

Do you agree with his statement?

"Dude, a straight white male probably endures more racism today in this country than a black person."

I can answer it in a straightforward way for you as an example: "No, I do not agree with that statement."
I can answer it in a straightforward way for you as an example: "No, I do not agree with that statement."
Still waiting for you to answer the question, are you an attorney?
 
Still waiting for you to answer the question, are you an attorney?
giphy.webp


The question was:

Do you agree with his statement?

"Dude, a straight white male probably endures more racism today in this country than a black person."

I can answer it in a straightforward way for you as an example: "No, I do not agree with that statement."
 
giphy.webp


The question was:

Do you agree with his statement?

"Dude, a straight white male probably endures more racism today in this country than a black person."

I can answer it in a straightforward way for you as an example: "No, I do not agree with that statement."
An earlier question was, Are you an attorney?

You can answer it in a straightforward way as an example to yourself by saying either yes or no.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT