|
|
Post by bobloblaw on Apr 8, 2016 14:15:25 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Evil Yoda on Apr 8, 2016 18:50:47 GMT -5
I doubt they're remove it. After he loses in November people will stop doing this. Until then, if it matters to him, he can hire a guard to watch it.
|
|
|
|
Post by rocketwolf on Apr 8, 2016 19:33:44 GMT -5
Classy people out there in Hollywood.
|
|
|
|
Post by Evil Yoda on Apr 9, 2016 10:30:34 GMT -5
Classy people out there in Hollywood. Trump has the right to say what he likes. Others have that right as well. Trump is a beacon of hate. His comments are going to spark responses of this nature. |
|
|
|
Post by vosa on Apr 9, 2016 16:15:46 GMT -5
Classy people out there in Hollywood. Trump has the right to say what he likes. Others have that right as well. Trump is a beacon of hate. His comments are going to spark responses of this nature.That statement is absolutely correct for those who have no self-control. Having one's lack of self-control excused seems to be some new kind of entitlement these days. |
|
|
|
Post by Evil Yoda on Apr 9, 2016 16:55:58 GMT -5
That statement is absolutely correct for those who have no self-control. Having one's lack of self-control excused seems to be some new kind of entitlement these days. >shrug< If money is speech, and the horrendous Citizens United decision says it is, then certainly expectoration, urination, and defecation are speech. Additionally, I doubt this represents a loss of self-control as much as it does deep contempt. |
|
|
|
Post by vosa on Apr 9, 2016 17:11:45 GMT -5
That statement is absolutely correct for those who have no self-control. Having one's lack of self-control excused seems to be some new kind of entitlement these days. >shrug< If money is speech, and the horrendous Citizens United decision says it is, then certainly expectoration, urination, and defecation are speech. Additionally, I doubt this represents a loss of self-control as much as it does deep contempt. This is not about the right to expectorate, urinate or defecate in public, it's about having the decency not to. And the idea that deep contempt for someone or something is a legitimate excuse for losing control of one's self is typical "Me" generation nonsense. “The fact is that men who know nothing of decency in their own lives are only too ready to launch foul slanders against their betters and to offer them up as victims to the evil deity of popular envy.”
― Plutarch |
|
|
|
Post by Evil Yoda on Apr 10, 2016 8:26:15 GMT -5
>shrug< If money is speech, and the horrendous Citizens United decision says it is, then certainly expectoration, urination, and defecation are speech. Additionally, I doubt this represents a loss of self-control as much as it does deep contempt. This is not about the right to expectorate, urinate or defecate in public, it's about having the decency not to. And the idea that deep contempt for someone or something is a legitimate excuse for losing control of one's self is typical "Me" generation nonsense. It's not how I'd express myself. But I doubt it's about a loss of self-control. If they had no self-control, then stars all up and down the Walk would be marked. They had a specific target and a specific reason for choosing it. And the fact that it made headlines tells you it's a pretty powerful message. |
|
|
|
Post by vosa on Apr 10, 2016 16:50:47 GMT -5
This is not about the right to expectorate, urinate or defecate in public, it's about having the decency not to. And the idea that deep contempt for someone or something is a legitimate excuse for losing control of one's self is typical "Me" generation nonsense. It's not how I'd express myself. But I doubt it's about a loss of self-control. If they had no self-control, then stars all up and down the Walk would be marked. They had a specific target and a specific reason for choosing it. And the fact that it made headlines tells you it's a pretty powerful message. To me, loss of self-control is when someone knows the rules, norms, etc. of a society and violates them anyway. To me, a murderer has lost his/her self-control by committing the act of murder. The fact that he/she may have only murdered one person instead of 20 does not indicated the person had control of himself/herself. Was Adam Lanza in control of himself? Does the fact that he didn't murder all the students and faculty at Newtowne Elementary mean that he was in control of himself. And if making headlines is an indication of a powerful message then what powerful message are you getting from the headlines regarding Justin Beiber or the Kardasians? |
|
|
|
Post by rocketwolf on Apr 10, 2016 18:22:41 GMT -5
This is not about the right to expectorate, urinate or defecate in public, it's about having the decency not to. And the idea that deep contempt for someone or something is a legitimate excuse for losing control of one's self is typical "Me" generation nonsense. It's not how I'd express myself. But I doubt it's about a loss of self-control. If they had no self-control, then stars all up and down the Walk would be marked. They had a specific target and a specific reason for choosing it. And the fact that it made headlines tells you it's a pretty powerful message. Well there are a few graves Id like to piss on, But having some class and some self control I'll never lower myself to that level,powerful message or not. |
|
|
|
Post by Evil Yoda on Apr 10, 2016 20:20:58 GMT -5
To me, loss of self-control is when someone knows the rules, norms, etc. of a society and violates them anyway. This is a classic conservative's perspective, to be sure. However, I submit that is is the very thing you decry that makes the message powerful. They want folks to know their opinion of Trump, and folks do. |
|
|
|
Post by vosa on Apr 11, 2016 12:10:34 GMT -5
To me, loss of self-control is when someone knows the rules, norms, etc. of a society and violates them anyway. This is a classic conservative's perspective, to be sure. However, I submit that is is the very thing you decry that makes the message powerful. They want folks to know their opinion of Trump, and folks do. And assassinating Trump would make the message even more powerful. History is replete with "the end justifies the means" stories and most of them did not turn out well for anyone involved. The simple truth is that there are people who can get their message across without violating societal norms and those that can't. Those that fall into the latter category run the risk of having their actions turn off their target audience before they even begin to deliver their message, to say nothing of drumming up sympathy for their victim. |
|
|
|
Post by Evil Yoda on Apr 11, 2016 13:16:57 GMT -5
And assassinating Trump would make the message even more powerful. History is replete with "the end justifies the means" stories and most of them did not turn out well for anyone involved. Careful you don't throw your shoulder out with that reach.  The simple truth is that there are people who can get their message across without violating societal norms and those that can't. Those that fall into the latter category run the risk of having their actions turn off their target audience before they even begin to deliver their message, to say nothing of drumming up sympathy for their victim. Societal norms are established by folks who do not want change. It is sometimes necessary to violate them in order to achieve change. I understand that conservatives dislike or fear (or maybe both) change; some folks have that nature. But not everyone does. Sure there's a chance their message will alienate some folks. It alienated you and probably a lot of other conservatives - who were not the target audience. It probably evoked cheering from liberals, who were also not the target audience. I'm sure their goal, of which they may not even be consciously aware, is to sway the moderates whose votes swing elections. Conservatives, judging by their rhetoric, hate or fear of moderates because they know without us the can't win, but to appeal to us they have to compromise, and they dislike doing that intensely. They have a "my way or the highway" approach to governance. But moderates are here to stay, and the conservatives had better figure out how to deal with us, or they will disappear. Of course, history shows one way to deal with political opponents decisively, and echoes of that history appear in a number of Trump gatherings. Perhaps you'll get lucky, he'll win, he'll build a cult of personality, and you'll have that all conservative utopia you long for. |
|
|
|
Post by bobloblaw on Apr 11, 2016 13:39:28 GMT -5
I wonder how much The Donald had to pay to get it placed there?
|
|
|
|
Post by vosa on Apr 12, 2016 12:07:11 GMT -5
And assassinating Trump would make the message even more powerful. History is replete with "the end justifies the means" stories and most of them did not turn out well for anyone involved. Careful you don't throw your shoulder out with that reach. What reach? Clearly you believe the more outrageous the act the better it gets the message across so why fart around with half measures. Killing Trump not only sends the message in the most emphatic way possible but it also eliminates the perceived problem. As an added bonus it will give Bill O’Reilly something to write another book about. The simple truth is that there are people who can get their message across without violating societal norms and those that can't. Those that fall into the latter category run the risk of having their actions turn off their target audience before they even begin to deliver their message, to say nothing of drumming up sympathy for their victim. Societal norms are established by folks who do not want change. It is sometimes necessary to violate them in order to achieve change. I understand that conservatives dislike or fear (or maybe both) change; some folks have that nature. But not everyone does. I suggest to you that when the subject is something liberals support it is the liberals who are against change. How about if the issue was civil rights laws? Would it be wrong to oppose urinating and defecating on a statute of MLK Jr.? Would opposing a change in those laws be considered a “conservative” position? Change and progress are not necessarily the same thing. As the old saying goes, “It depends on whose ox is being gored”. Sure there's a chance their message will alienate some folks. It alienated you and probably a lot of other conservatives - who were not the target audience. It probably evoked cheering from liberals, who were also not the target audience. I'm sure their goal, of which they may not even be consciously aware, is to sway the moderates whose votes swing elections. There’s something very strange about trying to influence moderates by performing immoderate acts. Or do you think urinating & defecating in public is a moderate act? Conservatives, judging by their rhetoric, hate or fear of moderates because they know without us the can't win, but to appeal to us they have to compromise, and they dislike doing that intensely. They have a "my way or the highway" approach to governance. But moderates are here to stay, and the conservatives had better figure out how to deal with us, or they will disappear. Of course, history shows one way to deal with political opponents decisively, and echoes of that history appear in a number of Trump gatherings. You’re painting with a broad brush here. The conservative spectrum is very wide. The Westwood Baptist church is not the model for all conservatives. In fact, true conservatives abhor the views of WBC and their ilk. Perhaps you'll get lucky, he'll win, he'll build a cult of personality, and you'll have that all conservative utopia you long for. This statement shows a complete misunderstand of my views. |
|
|
|
Post by Evil Yoda on Apr 12, 2016 13:29:26 GMT -5
Clearly you believe the more outrageous the act the better it gets the message across so why fart around with half measures. Killing Trump not only sends the message in the most emphatic way possible but it also eliminates the perceived problem. Except that I never said there wasn't a line. You simply assumed that about me. There's a poster here who likes to build strawmen he can argue against. Don't be like that. I suggest to you that when the subject is something liberals support it is the liberals who are against change. How about if the issue was civil rights laws? Would it be wrong to oppose urinating and defecating on a statute of MLK Jr.? Would opposing a change in those laws be considered a “conservative” position? Change and progress are not necessarily the same thing. It's not wrong to oppose it. Or to oppose doing the same to Trump's star. Either one is communication. Was it wrong for people to cancel their business dealings with N Carolina after it passed the bathroom bill? No. It's them, making a statement. You made a statement against what folks did to Trump's star as is your right. I merely suggest it is communicating an idea by shocking means. There’s something very strange about trying to influence moderates by performing immoderate acts. Or do you think urinating & defecating in public is a moderate act? They're trying to influence people with shocking acts. You’re painting with a broad brush here. The conservative spectrum is very wide. The Westwood Baptist church is not the model for all conservatives. In fact, true conservatives abhor the views of WBC and their ilk. Disliking change is right there in the definition of "conservative". They don't like new ideas. |
|
|
|
Post by vosa on Apr 13, 2016 13:20:46 GMT -5
I think we've just about exhausted this topic and we'll have to agree to disagree.
You seem to favor the "the end justifies the means" and "by any means necessary" approach and I don't.
And I do believe it is against the law to urinate and/or defecate in public. I would think you would condemn their actions on that basis alone.
|
|
|
|
Post by Evil Yoda on Apr 14, 2016 9:55:52 GMT -5
I think we've just about exhausted this topic and we'll have to agree to disagree. You seem to favor the "the end justifies the means" and "by any means necessary" approach and I don't. Not "any means necessary", as I have said. I merely understand the message they're trying to convey. You appear to be so outraged by the medium that you fail to understand the message. A great many people in this country dislike Trump, and that is going to give us President Felon. And, probably, a Supreme Court justice you won't much like. Maybe more than one. And I do believe it is against the law to urinate and/or defecate in public. I would think you would condemn their actions on that basis alone. It is. And if they get caught, they'd be arrested. People have been arrested for making political statements before this, and unless the government slips into the police state that seems to loom, they will be again. Those folks haven't done anything a garden hose won't fix. |
|
|
|
Post by vosa on Apr 14, 2016 14:36:42 GMT -5
Not "any means necessary", as I have said. I merely understand the message they're trying to convey. You appear to be so outraged by the medium that you fail to understand the message. A great many people in this country dislike Trump, and that is going to give us President Felon. And, probably, a Supreme Court justice you won't much like. Maybe more than one. I understand their message. I also understand that a lot of other people have the same message and manage to get that message across without turning the sidewalk into a public bathroom. It is. And if they get caught, they'd be arrested. People have been arrested for making political statements before this, and unless the government slips into the police state that seems to loom, they will be again. Those folks haven't done anything a garden hose won't fix. So you don’t want to see a police state. You’d like to conserve things the way they are. There are no greater advocates for conserving the status quo than liberals who have won. |
|
