Harvard writer: Free speech threatens liberalism and must be destroyed

Tsing Tao said:
Yes, with the exception that Totalitarianism seeks to control the public and private aspect of a citizen's life, whereas a Republic does not. But you know this, and are only responding like this in order to get your daily "work out" trolling in.
More...

I'm not trolling, you are. And if I'm getting a work out, so are you, since you're right here with me. What's the old saying, "you're firmly attached to whatever you're pushing away?"

The difference you point out makes no difference re free speech.

Our laws are written by those democratically elected. While they are constrained by the Constitution, even that can be changed by... the democratic method. So democracy is with us from start to finish.
 
Ricter said:
I'm not trolling, you are. And if I'm getting a work out, so are you, since you're right here with me. What's the old saying, "you're firmly attached to whatever you're pushing away?"

The difference you point out makes no difference re free speech.

Our laws are written by those democratically elected. While they are constrained by the Constitution, even that can be changed by... the democratic method. So democracy is with us from start to finish.
More...

Talk in circles, obfuscate. The Ricter M.O.

A republic has a charter or constitution that cannot be taken away by a government. It offers protection from pure democracy, and the democratic method to ensure that politicians can't get carried away. In a pure democracy, the majority can silence the minority whenever it wants, simply by electing the politicians it wants.
 
Ricter said:
I was speaking to you alone. That you find it puzzling says little.
More...

Yes, I know you were speaking to me. That doesn't change the fact that I don't know what you're getting at with that statement OR this last one.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top