posted on May 17, 2007 04:46:07 PM
Yea, well maybe someday this too will be labeled 'hate speech'. Would that meet with your approva;???
LOL
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
posted on May 17, 2007 04:49:26 PM
never spoke for you, Linda.
.sigh.
still waiting for an answer...
you didn't answer the question.
again:
Do you not think that nuns have a weird lifestyle?
Not to mention all of those women living together like that.
bizarre.
they must be man-hating feminists.
posted on May 17, 2007 04:58:30 PM
I have answered your question, zoomin.
You don't have to like my answer...but I gave one.
Comparing nuns to LAWS being created that limit free speech and hiring practices is totally irrelevant to this topic.
NOTE the above IS my answer. LOL
Nuns are not trying to change our laws so that people can't speak FREELY about how they feel about nuns. LOL LOL
Nuns aren't trying to change our laws so they can FORCE others to hire them....even though they might want to wear their attire.
And YOU can't say they ARE doing any such thing.
You're just bashing nuns for some strange reason....but their actions are no where NEAR the same as the actions of the gays/transvestites/etc. NO where near.
posted on May 18, 2007 10:52:17 AM
This notion that so many need 'special' laws to protect them appears to be speading like wildfire.
=================
Back to regular view • Print this page
Short, fat people may get rights
(http://www.suntimes.com/lifestyles/fashion/391792,CST-NWS-size18.article)
May 18, 2007
BY KEN MAGUIRE
BOSTON -- Ellen Frankel stands just 4-foot-8 inches tall, a size that allowed larger co-workers to playfully scoop her up at the office and make remarks about her height. Some even patted her on the head.
Lawmakers are considering complaints such as hers as they review a bill that would make Massachusetts just the second state to bar discrimination based on height or weight.
''People in authority will very easily make comments about height that they wouldn't make about race or gender,'' said Frankel, a Marblehead author.
Jeanne Toombs understands the frustration. She says overweight people routinely are discriminated against because of their size.
''It's not fair. No matter what you think of fat people, they deserve to be treated like human beings,'' said Toombs, 59, a piano teacher who weighs 300 pounds.
But Republican analyst Todd Domke is concerned that lawmakers will scare off businesses if they expand protection to include short and overweight workers.
''We might as well add colorblind, left-handed, allergic-to-cashews, and get it over with,'' Domke said.
AP
======================
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
posted on May 18, 2007 11:32:08 AMYou're just bashing nuns for some strange reason
Just like you are bashing gays and trans gendered people.
So Linda what does a gay person look like? Unless a person specifically tells the person conducting the interview they are gay, how would they know? What happens then if the gay person gets hired.
You keep saying people will be forced to hire people that go against their religious beliefs. If the gay person does not say he is gay during the interview how does this violate what the religious person believes?
How many gay people are currently working for people like you - who do not look kindly on gays.
how would you feel IF nuns wanted to force gay clubs/bathhouses to HIRE them
Do you stay up all night to come up with these bizarre examples. First of how many nuns do you know that would be willing to work in a straight porn shop, yet alone a gay bath house. Get real Linda with your examples. It is people like you that try to pass off these bizarre examples as every day occurrences. Why don't you come up with real situations instead of your off the wall examples?
If you insist on using religious examples, there are currently openly gay priests and bishops within certain religious orders that are serving God without any problems.
Furthermore, who gave you the right to judge what people do. The only person anyone needs to answer to is God. People will answer to him alone for their actions. They will not have to answer to you or any of your bigot friends.
Linda, show me one company that hires a person based on what they do inside their bedroom.
Furthermore, you have yet to show how your rights would be violated by hiring someone that does not share the same religious beliefs as you.
If you worked for some mom and pop store, that hired you and then hired an openly gay person, what would you do then? Would you quit because your religious views are different than that of the owners?
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
---------------------------------- The duty of a patriot in this time and place is to ask questions, to demand answers, to understand where our nation is headed and why. If the answers you get do not suit you, or if they frighten you, or if they anger you, it is your duty as a patriot to dissent. Freedom does not begin with blind acceptance and with a flag. Freedom begins when you say 'No.'
posted on May 18, 2007 11:41:52 AM
Linda your reasons for not hiring gay people would be considered discriminatory practices especially if you operate a business in a state that includes sexual orientation in its list of protected groups.
Discriminatory practices under these laws also include:
harassment on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, disability, or age;
retaliation against an individual for filing a charge of discrimination, participating in an investigation, or opposing discriminatory practices;
employment decisions based on stereotypes or assumptions about the abilities, traits, or performance of individuals of a certain sex, race, age, religion, or ethnic group, or individuals with disabilities;
and denying employment opportunities to a person because of marriage to, or association with, an individual of a particular race, religion, national origin, or an individual with a disability. Title VII also prohibits discrimination because of participation in schools or places of worship associated with a particular racial, ethnic, or religious group.
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
---------------------------------- The duty of a patriot in this time and place is to ask questions, to demand answers, to understand where our nation is headed and why. If the answers you get do not suit you, or if they frighten you, or if they anger you, it is your duty as a patriot to dissent. Freedom does not begin with blind acceptance and with a flag. Freedom begins when you say 'No.'
posted on May 18, 2007 11:54:53 AM
Linda and the rest of her religious bigots would not hire gays lesbians or transgendered becasue it would supposedly violate their rights.
Sixteen states and over 180 communities have added sexual orientation to their list of protected groups.
Now with that said, where are all the lawsuits claiming this is unconstitutional. Where are all the lawsuits that claim people's right were being violated because they were "forced to hire" an openly gay person.
I suppose Linda will bring up the Boy Scouts as an example to prove her case. But remember the Boy Scouts is not a business.
Update on State Laws Prohibiting Sexual Orientation Discrimination in Private Employment
Currently, fifteen states and the District of Columbia have laws that prohibit sexual orientation discrimination in private employment: California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Wisconsin.
In Maine, on November 8, 2005, the recently enacted state law that prohibits sexual orientation discrimination will be challenged by a state ballot initiative that asks voters if they want to reject the new law. (See Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. Title 5 §4552, as amended by 122nd Me. Leg. Bill LD No.1146, enacted March 31, 2005.)
In Illinois, on January 1, 2006, a new state law will go into effect, making it the sixteenth state to prohibit sexual orientation discrimination in private employment. (See 775 Ill. Com. Stat. § 5/1-102, as amended by Public Act 093-1078, enacted January 21, 2005).
In Oregon, at least one court found that sexual orientation discrimination is prohibited under the state’s constitution (Tanner v. Oregon Health Sciences University, 157 Ore. App. 502, 971 P.2d 435 (1998)). However, attempts to pass legislation that would codify such protections statewide have been unsuccessful. For more information, contact an employment attorney or the fair employment practices agency in Oregon.
Of course, even if your state law does not prohibit sexual orientation discrimination, your locality may: Over 180 cities and counties prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in at least some workplaces
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
---------------------------------- The duty of a patriot in this time and place is to ask questions, to demand answers, to understand where our nation is headed and why. If the answers you get do not suit you, or if they frighten you, or if they anger you, it is your duty as a patriot to dissent. Freedom does not begin with blind acceptance and with a flag. Freedom begins when you say 'No.'
posted on May 18, 2007 02:08:44 PM
I guess Linda doesn't have a defense after all. The law agrees her rights would not be violated if this proposal becomes law.
The law trumps her religious beliefs any day of the week. That is a FACT.
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
---------------------------------- The duty of a patriot in this time and place is to ask questions, to demand answers, to understand where our nation is headed and why. If the answers you get do not suit you, or if they frighten you, or if they anger you, it is your duty as a patriot to dissent. Freedom does not begin with blind acceptance and with a flag. Freedom begins when you say 'No.'
Author: Philip Atkinson
Source: The Family Security Foundation, Inc.
Date: May 17, 2007
How many of us are aware of the extent to which the new thought police are eroding our free speech prerogatives throughout Western societies? FSM Contributing Editor Philip Atkinson’s expert evaluation is an important contribution to one of the premier issues of our times.
The Tyranny of Political Correctness
By Philip Atkinson
What is Political Correctness?
Political Correctness (PC) is the communal tyranny that erupted in the 1980s. It was a spontaneous declaration that particular ideas, expressions and behavior, which were then legal, should be forbidden by law, and people who transgressed should be punished. It started with a few voices but grew in popularity until it became unwritten and written law within the community. With those who were publicly declared as being not politically correct becoming the object of persecution by the mob.
The Odious Nature Of Political Correctness
To attempt to point out the odious nature of Political Correctness is to restate the crucial importance of plain speaking, freedom of choice and freedom of speech; these are the community's safe-guards against the imposition of tyranny, indeed their absence is tyranny. This is why any such restrictions on expression such as those invoked by the laws of libel, slander and public decency, are grave matters to be decided by common law methodology; not by the dictates of the mob.
Clear Inspiration for Political Correctness
The declared rational of this tyranny is to prevent people being offended; to compel everyone to avoid using words or behavior that may upset homosexuals, women, non-whites, the crippled, the stupid, the fat or the ugly. This reveals not only its absurdity but its inspiration. The set of values that are detested are those held by the previous generation (those who fought the Second World War), which is why the terms niggers, coons, dagos, wogs, poofs, spastics and sheilas, have become heresy, for, in an act of infantile rebellion, their subjects have become revered by the new generation. Political Correctness is merely the resentment of spoilt children directed against their parent's values.
The Origins Of Political Correctness
A community declines when the majority of its citizens become selfish, and under this influence it slowly dismantles all the restraints upon self-indulgence established by manners, customs, beliefs and law: tradition. (See the law of reverse civilization) As each subsequent generation of selfish citizens inherits control of the community, it takes its opportunity to abandon more of the irksome restraints that genius and wisdom had installed. The proponents of this social demolition achieve their irrational purpose by publicly embracing absurdity through slogans while vilifying any who do not support their stance. The purpose of the slogan is to enshrine irrational fears, or fancies, as truth through the use of presumptuous words, so public pronouncement:
Dissembles the real nature of the claim
Identifies any dissenters as enemies of the truth
Acts as an excuse for any crimes committed in its name
For example the slogan Australia is Multicultural is a claim that:
Different cultures are compatible.
People who contradict this claim are blinded by prejudice against other cultures.
People who contradict this claim are trouble-making bigots, which makes them enemies of the community, if not humanity, and deserving persecution.
All of which is an attack upon truth, clear thinking and plain speaking.
From Bourgeois To Racist
Naturally, as the restraints shrink the rebellion grows ever more extreme in nature. When the author of Animal Farm wrote an article in 1946 about the pleasures of a rose garden, he was criticized for being bourgeois.
George Orwell mentions this in his essay A Good Word For The Vicar Of Bray, published in the Tribune, 1946. The term bourgeois was then a popular slogan meaning having humdrum middle class ideas— The Oxford English Dictionary 3rd Edition, 1938 — which is just a blatant attack upon tradition.
Outright Assault Upon Tradition
Now, in the late 1990s, the results of being bourgeois (retaining traditional notions), is being labeled racist, sexist, etc., and you risk losing your job, your reputation, being jostled in the street, being subject to judicial penalty and to death threats. And it is this very extremity of reaction that has won media attention and the name Political Correctness, though the reaction will become even more unpleasant with the next generation.
Parental Values Always Attacked
The inevitable scapegoat for people impatient of restraint must always be parents, because these are society's agents for teaching private restraint. So the cherished notions of the parents are always subject to attack by their maturing offspring. This resentment of tradition was observed in his own civilization by Polybius (c. 200-118 BC), the Greek historian, who said:
"For every democracy which has enjoyed prosperity for a considerable period first develops through its nature an attitude of discontent towards the existing order...."
Tyranny Grows
Once a community embraces tyranny the penalties can only grow in severity. This gradual increase is easily seen by the example of Toastmasters. As the members of the club became more concerned about the delights of socializing and less concerned about the disciplines of public speaking, they became more intolerant of citizens who were earnest about learning the art of rhetoric. Once those members who did their duty by truthfully pointing out the shortcomings in another member's performance were just labeled as negative or discouraging; later this became a risk of being socially ostracized.
Now (since 1998) unpopularity can result in being permanently ejected from the club by a majority vote.
Australian Experience Of PC Tyranny
In my country the tyranny erupted with the persecution of public figures such as Arthur Tunstall for uttering truths that had become unpopular, either directly in a speech, or indirectly by telling jokes. The maiden speech of the Federal Member of Parliament for Ipswich contained so many disliked truths that the rabble escalated the ferocity of their attack and extended them to her supporters, introducing terror into Australian politics.
Anyone who watched the TV coverage (1997/8) of Pauline Hanson's political campaign will have seen the nature of her opponents; a throng who looked and behaved more like barbarians than citizens of a civilized community. And any mob that chants "Burn the witch" (when she spoke outside an Ipswich hall after she had been refused entry) leaves no doubt as to their intent or character.
Widespread Throughout The Community
Revealing the extent of the mob's support, their sentiments (suitably refined) were enthusiastically echoed by the media and the administration. And in an unprecedented act of cooperation, all the political parties conspired to eject Ms. Hanson from the federal parliament in the election of October 3rd 1998. This was revealed by the how-to-vote cards of the parties contesting the seat of Blaire, which all placed Ms. Hanson last. This was a public admission by both the major parties that they would rather risk losing the election than allow this forthright woman to keep her seat in parliament.
International Experience Of PC Tyranny
And it is not just in Australia but in every western democratic country popular demands have been made for restrictions on expression
Bowing to the clamor of the electorate, politicians in these countries have enacted absurd laws. The Australian community-wide declaration of irrational hatred displayed by the persecution of Pauline Hanson paralleled the Canadian experience of Paul Fromm, director of the Canadian Association for Free Expression Inc., and the examples of the national soccer coach of England and a prominent public servant in Washington,
USA confirm that the hysteria is everywhere.
The Inevitable Result Of Political Correctness
By using the excuse of not upsetting anyone, the politically correct are demanding that people behave like the fool who would please everyone; that everyone must become such a fool! All must accept the notions of the Politically Correct as truth, or else! This is the same mentality that inspired the Inquisition and forced Galileo to recant; the same mentality that inspired the Nazis and obtained the Holocaust. Once expression gets placed in a straitjacket of official truth, then the madness that occurs in all totalitarian states is obtained. Life, in private and public, becomes a meaningless charade where delusion thrives and terror rules.
Examples Of Denying Freedom Of Speech
Evidence of this effect is amply demonstrated by the Soviets, who embraced Political Correctness with the Communist Revolution.
The lumbering, pompous, impoverished, humorless monster this Nation became is now History. And it should be remembered that in 1914 Tsarist Russia was considered by Edmund Cars, a French economist who then published a book about the subject, to be an economic giant set to overshadow Europe.
The SBS television program "What Ever Happened To Russia", which was broadcast at 8.30 pm on 25th August 1994, detailed the terrible effect the Bolshevik's oppression had on their empire. And SBS further detailed the terrible crimes inflicted upon the Russians by their leader Stalin, in the series "Blood On The Snow" broadcast in March 1999.
An Old Witness
Helen, a member of Parramatta writers club in 1992, was a citizen of Kiev during the Red Terror, and described living with official truth and the constant threat of arrest. Knowing the content of the latest party newspaper was critical to avoiding internment, as public contradiction, either directly or indirectly, meant denouncement to the KGB. If you complained about being hungry when food shortages were not officially recognized, then you became an enemy of the state. If you failed to praise a Soviet hero, or praised an ex-hero, then again your fate was sealed. The need to be politically correct dominated all conversation and behavior, as failure meant drastic penalty. Uncertainty and fear pervaded everything, nobody could be sure that an official request to visit Party headquarters meant imprisonment, torture, death, public reward or nothing important. Living with such a terrible handicap naturally destroyed all spontaneity of thought or action, rendering the whole community mad.
The awful effect this had upon Helen's sanity was made clear when she escaped to Australia. Here she encountered the free press, which had an unpleasant impact upon her. One day she read The Australian newspaper which happened to carry two separate articles about Patrick White, one praising, the other denigrating this well known writer. Poor Helen found herself turning from one to the other, which was she to repeat as correct? She nearly had a nervous breakdown.
Political Correctness Is Social Dementia
Unless plain speaking is allowed, clear thinking is denied. There can be no good reason for denying freedom of expression, there is no case to rebut, only the empty slogans of people inspired by selfishness and unrestrained by morality. The proponents of this nonsense neither understand the implications of what they say, nor why they are saying it: they are insane.
Social Decline Grows Worse With Each
Generation
Political Correctness is part of the social decline that generation by generation makes public behavior less restrained and less rational.
===================================
FamilySecurityMatters.org Contributing Editor Philip Atkinson is the British born founder of ourcivilization.com and author of A Study of Our Decline. He is a philosopher specializing in issues concerning the preservation of Western Civilization. Mr. Atkinson receives mail at [email protected].
ld with more of his baiting statements....the reason I don't normally respond to his nonsense. It's when one does respond....he STILL can't grasp what has been said. So I don't bother even trying.
posted on May 18, 2007 02:16:45 PM
""BY KEN MAGUIRE
BOSTON -- Ellen Frankel stands just 4-foot-8 inches tall, a size that allowed larger co-workers to playfully scoop her up at the office and make remarks about her height. Some even patted her on the head.""
There ARE laws about this particular instance. It's called assault.
Remarks about someone's physical attributes is also covered. Her company is guilty of not reeling in these slobs and she should sue and retire early!
posted on May 18, 2007 07:31:56 PM
From linduh's post...which she advocates, words she longs to use:
""The set of values that are detested are those held by the previous generation (those who fought the Second World War), which is why the terms niggers, coons, dagos, wogs, poofs, spastics and sheilas, have become heresy""
linduh if those repulsive terms are what you dearly want to use then have at it....it sure says everything there is to know about you.
But I already knew you were a racist, bigot, uneducated, illiterate, backwards, nasty, amoral and psychopathic.
linduh, I'm glad it upsets you that you can't use these words around decent people but your circle of friends I'm sure don't mind.
Here's another question for you to not answer:
Do you use these words in church....when you pray to your other god(not bush) ?
posted on May 18, 2007 08:04:57 PM
Linda_K
posted on May 18, 2007 02:13:15 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/challenges.php?id=985416#
Exclusive: The Tyranny of Political Correctness
Author: Philip Atkinson
Source: The Family Security Foundation, Inc.
Date: May 17, 2007
How many of us are aware of the extent to which the new thought police are eroding our free speech prerogatives throughout Western societies? FSM Contributing Editor Philip Atkinson’s expert evaluation is an important contribution to one of the premier issues of our times.
The Tyranny of Political Correctness
By Philip Atkinson
What is Political Correctness?
Political Correctness (PC) is the communal tyranny that erupted in the 1980s. It was a spontaneous declaration that particular ideas, expressions and behavior, which were then legal, should be forbidden by law, and people who transgressed should be punished. It started with a few voices but grew in popularity until it became unwritten and written law within the community. With those who were publicly declared as being not politically correct becoming the object of persecution by the mob.
The Odious Nature Of Political Correctness
To attempt to point out the odious nature of Political Correctness is to restate the crucial importance of plain speaking, freedom of choice and freedom of speech; these are the community's safe-guards against the imposition of tyranny, indeed their absence is tyranny. This is why any such restrictions on expression such as those invoked by the laws of libel, slander and public decency, are grave matters to be decided by common law methodology; not by the dictates of the mob.
Clear Inspiration for Political Correctness
The declared rational of this tyranny is to prevent people being offended; to compel everyone to avoid using words or behavior that may upset homosexuals, women, non-whites, the crippled, the stupid, the fat or the ugly. This reveals not only its absurdity but its inspiration. The set of values that are detested are those held by the previous generation (those who fought the Second World War), which is why the terms niggers, coons, dagos, wogs, poofs, spastics and sheilas, have become heresy, for, in an act of infantile rebellion, their subjects have become revered by the new generation. Political Correctness is merely the resentment of spoilt children directed against their parent's values.
The Origins Of Political Correctness
A community declines when the majority of its citizens become selfish, and under this influence it slowly dismantles all the restraints upon self-indulgence established by manners, customs, beliefs and law: tradition. (See the law of reverse civilization) As each subsequent generation of selfish citizens inherits control of the community, it takes its opportunity to abandon more of the irksome restraints that genius and wisdom had installed. The proponents of this social demolition achieve their irrational purpose by publicly embracing absurdity through slogans while vilifying any who do not support their stance. The purpose of the slogan is to enshrine irrational fears, or fancies, as truth through the use of presumptuous words, so public pronouncement:
Dissembles the real nature of the claim
Identifies any dissenters as enemies of the truth
Acts as an excuse for any crimes committed in its name
For example the slogan Australia is Multicultural is a claim that:
Different cultures are compatible.
People who contradict this claim are blinded by prejudice against other cultures.
People who contradict this claim are trouble-making bigots, which makes them enemies of the community, if not humanity, and deserving persecution.
All of which is an attack upon truth, clear thinking and plain speaking.
From Bourgeois To Racist
Naturally, as the restraints shrink the rebellion grows ever more extreme in nature. When the author of Animal Farm wrote an article in 1946 about the pleasures of a rose garden, he was criticized for being bourgeois.
George Orwell mentions this in his essay A Good Word For The Vicar Of Bray, published in the Tribune, 1946. The term bourgeois was then a popular slogan meaning having humdrum middle class ideas— The Oxford English Dictionary 3rd Edition, 1938 — which is just a blatant attack upon tradition.
Outright Assault Upon Tradition
Now, in the late 1990s, the results of being bourgeois (retaining traditional notions), is being labeled racist, sexist, etc., and you risk losing your job, your reputation, being jostled in the street, being subject to judicial penalty and to death threats. And it is this very extremity of reaction that has won media attention and the name Political Correctness, though the reaction will become even more unpleasant with the next generation.
Parental Values Always Attacked
The inevitable scapegoat for people impatient of restraint must always be parents, because these are society's agents for teaching private restraint. So the cherished notions of the parents are always subject to attack by their maturing offspring. This resentment of tradition was observed in his own civilization by Polybius (c. 200-118 BC), the Greek historian, who said:
"For every democracy which has enjoyed prosperity for a considerable period first develops through its nature an attitude of discontent towards the existing order...."
Tyranny Grows
Once a community embraces tyranny the penalties can only grow in severity. This gradual increase is easily seen by the example of Toastmasters. As the members of the club became more concerned about the delights of socializing and less concerned about the disciplines of public speaking, they became more intolerant of citizens who were earnest about learning the art of rhetoric. Once those members who did their duty by truthfully pointing out the shortcomings in another member's performance were just labeled as negative or discouraging; later this became a risk of being socially ostracized.
Now (since 1998) unpopularity can result in being permanently ejected from the club by a majority vote.
Australian Experience Of PC Tyranny
In my country the tyranny erupted with the persecution of public figures such as Arthur Tunstall for uttering truths that had become unpopular, either directly in a speech, or indirectly by telling jokes. The maiden speech of the Federal Member of Parliament for Ipswich contained so many disliked truths that the rabble escalated the ferocity of their attack and extended them to her supporters, introducing terror into Australian politics.
Anyone who watched the TV coverage (1997/8) of Pauline Hanson's political campaign will have seen the nature of her opponents; a throng who looked and behaved more like barbarians than citizens of a civilized community. And any mob that chants "Burn the witch" (when she spoke outside an Ipswich hall after she had been refused entry) leaves no doubt as to their intent or character.
Widespread Throughout The Community
Revealing the extent of the mob's support, their sentiments (suitably refined) were enthusiastically echoed by the media and the administration. And in an unprecedented act of cooperation, all the political parties conspired to eject Ms. Hanson from the federal parliament in the election of October 3rd 1998. This was revealed by the how-to-vote cards of the parties contesting the seat of Blaire, which all placed Ms. Hanson last. This was a public admission by both the major parties that they would rather risk losing the election than allow this forthright woman to keep her seat in parliament.
International Experience Of PC Tyranny
And it is not just in Australia but in every western democratic country popular demands have been made for restrictions on expression
Bowing to the clamor of the electorate, politicians in these countries have enacted absurd laws. The Australian community-wide declaration of irrational hatred displayed by the persecution of Pauline Hanson paralleled the Canadian experience of Paul Fromm, director of the Canadian Association for Free Expression Inc., and the examples of the national soccer coach of England and a prominent public servant in Washington,
USA confirm that the hysteria is everywhere.
The Inevitable Result Of Political Correctness
By using the excuse of not upsetting anyone, the politically correct are demanding that people behave like the fool who would please everyone; that everyone must become such a fool! All must accept the notions of the Politically Correct as truth, or else! This is the same mentality that inspired the Inquisition and forced Galileo to recant; the same mentality that inspired the Nazis and obtained the Holocaust. Once expression gets placed in a straitjacket of official truth, then the madness that occurs in all totalitarian states is obtained. Life, in private and public, becomes a meaningless charade where delusion thrives and terror rules.
Examples Of Denying Freedom Of Speech
Evidence of this effect is amply demonstrated by the Soviets, who embraced Political Correctness with the Communist Revolution.
The lumbering, pompous, impoverished, humorless monster this Nation became is now History. And it should be remembered that in 1914 Tsarist Russia was considered by Edmund Cars, a French economist who then published a book about the subject, to be an economic giant set to overshadow Europe.
The SBS television program "What Ever Happened To Russia", which was broadcast at 8.30 pm on 25th August 1994, detailed the terrible effect the Bolshevik's oppression had on their empire. And SBS further detailed the terrible crimes inflicted upon the Russians by their leader Stalin, in the series "Blood On The Snow" broadcast in March 1999.
An Old Witness
Helen, a member of Parramatta writers club in 1992, was a citizen of Kiev during the Red Terror, and described living with official truth and the constant threat of arrest. Knowing the content of the latest party newspaper was critical to avoiding internment, as public contradiction, either directly or indirectly, meant denouncement to the KGB. If you complained about being hungry when food shortages were not officially recognized, then you became an enemy of the state. If you failed to praise a Soviet hero, or praised an ex-hero, then again your fate was sealed. The need to be politically correct dominated all conversation and behavior, as failure meant drastic penalty. Uncertainty and fear pervaded everything, nobody could be sure that an official request to visit Party headquarters meant imprisonment, torture, death, public reward or nothing important. Living with such a terrible handicap naturally destroyed all spontaneity of thought or action, rendering the whole community mad.
The awful effect this had upon Helen's sanity was made clear when she escaped to Australia. Here she encountered the free press, which had an unpleasant impact upon her. One day she read The Australian newspaper which happened to carry two separate articles about Patrick White, one praising, the other denigrating this well known writer. Poor Helen found herself turning from one to the other, which was she to repeat as correct? She nearly had a nervous breakdown.
Political Correctness Is Social Dementia
Unless plain speaking is allowed, clear thinking is denied. There can be no good reason for denying freedom of expression, there is no case to rebut, only the empty slogans of people inspired by selfishness and unrestrained by morality. The proponents of this nonsense neither understand the implications of what they say, nor why they are saying it: they are insane.
Social Decline Grows Worse With Each
Generation
Political Correctness is part of the social decline that generation by generation makes public behavior less restrained and less rational.
===================================
FamilySecurityMatters.org Contributing Editor Philip Atkinson is the British born founder of ourcivilization.com and author of A Study of Our Decline. He is a philosopher specializing in issues concerning the preservation of Western Civilization. Mr. Atkinson receives mail at [email protected].
ld with more of his baiting statements....the reason I don't normally respond to his nonsense. It's when one does respond....he STILL can't grasp what has been said. So I don't bother even trying.
posted on May 18, 2007 09:04:20 PM
From linduh's post...which she advocates, words she longs to use:
""The set of values that are detested are those held by the previous generation (those who fought the Second World War), which is why the terms niggers, coons, dagos, wogs, poofs, spastics and sheilas, have become heresy""
linduh if those repulsive terms are what you dearly want to use then have at it....it sure says everything there is to know about you.
But I already knew you were a racist, bigot, uneducated, illiterate, backwards, nasty, amoral and psychopathic.
linduh, I'm glad it upsets you that you can't use these words around decent people but your circle of friends I'm sure don't mind.
Here's another question for you to not answer:
Do you use these words in church....when you pray to your other god(not bush) ?
Decisions, decisions, decisions.....(for me I mean)
posted on May 19, 2007 06:43:07 AM ''""The set of values that are detested are those held by the previous generation (those who fought the Second World War), which is why the terms niggers, coons, dagos, wogs, poofs, spastics and sheilas, have become heresy, for, in an act of infantile rebellion, their subjects have become revered by the new generation. Political Correctness is merely the resentment of spoilt children directed against their parent's values. """"
And, then he calls the use of those foul, derogatory terms "parent's values".
posted on May 19, 2007 08:21:50 AM
'Expert evaluation'??
Philip Atkinson:
In January 2000 I became an Internet publisher, placing a variety of books 'online' at my own expense, in an attempt to preserve some of the vanishing wisdom of humanity.
Early in 2004 I realized that not only did my theory clarify the subject of civilization, but it also clarified that of Philosophy, so ever since then I have considered myself a philosopher.
posted on May 19, 2007 09:49:15 AM
Since sybil has chosen to once again, misrepresent MY position....I'll restate it myself.
I believe in freedom of speech - our constitution GUARANTEES it. But the liberal/progressive/further left radicals don't CARE what our constitution protects.
But they continue to SAY they do. When push comes to shove....they PROVE they don't. The only allowed speech they believe is PC is allowed. All others they will continue to work to CENSOR and made UNLAWFUL.
I am against laws that try to work to stifle speech or thoughts. Reminds me of communism...which sybil has admitted she'd have no problem living under. tsk tsk tsk
I believe IF people become offended by something said....they can 'shun' those they don't like - remain separate from those who offend them. They don't need to make law after law after law to LIMIT or forbid speech THEY don't like - speech THEY find offensive, especially when it's NOT calling for any violence towards others.
Because I believe that will put us in a place, as described in the above article.....at a point where no one will be able to say anything someone doesn't find offensive.
posted on May 19, 2007 09:54:25 AM
NO, linduh, YOUR post ADVOCATED RACISM and YOU can't get away with squirming around THIS one !
Try READING one of your own posts and you won't look like such a lying buffoon
(like in the Planned Parenthood thread ).
You say, ""has admitted she'd have no problem living under. tsk tsk tsk""
posted on May 19, 2007 10:04:28 AM
mingotree
posted on May 19, 2007 08:49:44 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I'd prefer Communism over RACISM and FASCISM."
AND:
mingotree
posted on May 19, 2007 09:37:38 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gee linduh, you're pretty active in here...trying to avoid the 'cross dressing" thread where you advocated racism ?
Haven't answered any questions there.....??????
"And YES I PREFER Communism OVER YOUR racism and Fascism.....SO?"
Now...I guess you'll start doing what you always do.....lie...lie...lie....deny...deny...deny. Pretend you didn't say what you have.
You've done if from day ONE.....even when other posters have pulled up the LINKS and proven things to you....you LIVE in your denial.
tsk tsk tsk
[ edited by Linda_K on May 19, 2007 10:09 AM ]
[ edited by Linda_K on May 19, 2007 10:10 AM ]
posted on May 19, 2007 11:42:02 AM
Hate speech which targets some citizens as inferior to others on the basis of race or sexual orientation is not consistent with the values of a liberal democracy.
posted on May 19, 2007 03:12:57 PM
Well... I agree with Linda... in fact... what is next??? legalizing humans getting married to animals? I want equal rights so I can marry my favorite carrot growing in our garden. Get real Linduh. Your analogies are about as stupid as you are.
Oh, and how exactly is this a free speech issue again??? You can disagree with this bill, you can disagree with it if it passed, you can stand on the sidewalk with a sign saying the end of the world is coming because the law passed... you can go on a radio station and blather on and on about how wrong you feel a law like this, yet the bottom line is that nobody is taking away your right to free speech by passing a law barring discriminatory practices just because your "morals" aren't ok with someone elses lifestyle.
On a side note, a business here in Portland, very similar to ours hired a transgendered sales person. People talked about it all the time, and the most common thing they would say beyond that he was transgendered was that he was the nicest person. Ironically, their sales went way up.
posted on May 19, 2007 03:58:00 PM
helen posted on May 19, 2007 11:42:02 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hate speech which targets some citizens as inferior to others on the basis of race or sexual orientation is not consistent with the values of a liberal democracy.
===================
You're also missing the point. We all can decide what WE see as hate speech. And we can IGNORE it...or many other choices we have in America.
But it is NOT the 'values of a liberal or a conservative democracy'.....that is a bunch of BS.
Freedom of speech IS guaranteed by our constitution. So now helen doesn't agree with our constitution either. LOL LOL LOL
Or maybe she can SHOW all of us WHERE in our constitution our speech is limited....or to be limited by our gov = meaning passing laws forbidding it....making it ILLEGA.
Heck anyone that has read their HISTORY, know our founding fathers fought tooth and nail with one another. Why? Because they didn't agree with one another. The fought and fought.....no PC agreement there either. NO limiting of how OTHERS felt...thought....NOR what they SAID because someone else didn't like it.
Hint...it's NOT there. Being PC is not mentioned there at all. Matter of fact....disagreement is what a democracy IS ALL ABOUT. LOL
The radical liberals are just confused.
As usual.
They want laws for all speech THEY don't like.
Who gets to decide what is say hate speech? THEM???? LOL LOL LOL Nope.....not the American way. But it is the way of the progressives/socialists/communists who have ALWAYS censored free speech...or tried to.
Those who want PENALTIES, punishable by LAW if anyone says something THEY don't like.
Maybe you all would be happier in China, Cuba, etc. etc. where their free speech IS very limited. Sounds to me that's just what you want to come about here in America.
Well...I don't. Live with it. We'll fight your wish to CENSOR/limit our free speech all we can. As is also the American way. And we'll ALSO work AGAINST those who try to FORCE, by LAW, hiring someone they don't WANT to hire.....just because others wnat them to. LOL
THAT is a true democracy, helen. FREE CHOICES....not more gov. regulation/laws.
posted on May 19, 2007 04:03:46 PM
Rusty....you only prove your inability to grasp what is being stated.
There is a HUGE difference between being TOLD....by gov. / by law what is allowed to think, feel or say.
OUR nation was not founded on FORCING all to see everything the same way.
As I have pointed out before....just because you and your ILK think forcing companies to hire those they don't wish to hire is okay with YOU....doesn't mean it is with others.
Also as I have ALSO pointed out....there are ALREADY LAWS protecting people from discrimination. NO NEED to make it another Federal law.
It's just the radicals want SPECIAL rights for those who support their party.
But there are MILLIONS and MILLIONS of other American's who won't have these ADDITIONAL SPECIAL rights.
Try and grasp that. Don't have to agree....just TRY to grasp not all are as radical as you are.
posted on May 19, 2007 04:12:48 PM
linduh drools :
""You're also missing the point. We all can decide what WE see as hate speech. And we can IGNORE it...or many other choices we have in America.""
YOU can ignore it...DECENT people won't !
"""But it is NOT the 'values of a liberal or a conservative democracy'.....is a bunch of BS.
Freedom of speech IS guaranteed by our constitution. So now helen doesn't agree with our constitution either. LOL LOL LOL
Or maybe she can SHOW all of us WHERE in our constitution our speech is limited.....or to be limited by our gov.
Heck anyone that has read their HISTORY, know our founding fathers fought tooth and nail with one another. Why? Because they didn't agree with one another. The fought and fought.....no PC agreement there either.""""
Dear brain dead stupid one....the constitution was formed A LONG TIME AGO...things are different now, DOPE!
Although I'm sure YOU ARE sorry slavery has ended!
""Hint...it's NOT there. Being PC is not mentioned there at all. Matter of fact....disagreement is what a democracy IS ALL ABOUT. LOL
They radical liberals are just confused.
As usual.
They want laws for all speech THEY don't like.
Who gets to decide what is say hate speech? THEM???? LOL LOL LOL Nope.....not the American way. But it is the way of the progressives/socialists/communists who have ALWAYS censored free speech...or tried to.
Maybe you all would be happier in China, Cuba, etc. etc. where their free speech IS very limited. Sounds to me that's just what you want to come about here in America.
Well...I don't. Live with it. We'll fight your wish to CENSOR/limit our free speech all we can. As is also the American way.""""
So you OBVIOUSLY WANT TO USE WORDS LIKE (from YOUR post):"" which is why the terms niggers, coons, dagos, wogs, poofs, spastics and sheilas, ""
How sick!
Linda_K
posted on May 19, 2007 04:03:46 PM new
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rusty....you only prove your inability to grasp what is being stated.
There is a HUGE difference between being TOLD....by gov. / by law what is allowed to think, feel or say."""
WHO was told what to think or feel ???
Please give a list.
Here's the corker
"""OUR nation was not founded on FORCING all to see everything the same way.""
YOU think everyone should feel exactly as you and bushit !!!! Or they're not patriotic, they're traitors!
As I have pointed out before....just because you and your ILK think forcing companies to hire those they don't wish to hire is okay with YOU....doesn't mean it is with others.
Also as I have ALSO pointed out....there are ALREADY LAWS protecting people from discrimination. NO NEED to make it another Federal law.
It's just the radicals want SPECIAL rights for those who support their party.
But there are MILLIONS and MILLIONS of other American's who won't have these ADDITIONAL SPECIAL rights.
Try and grasp that. Don't have to agree....just TRY to grasp not all are as radical as you are.""
You sure like the word "grasp"...can't think of another word or are ya getting desperate again
