When the Massachusetts legislature raised the tax on liquora few years ago, lots of other Mass. Pols drove over the border to buy their tax-free booze! One, who was caught on video, and asked if he thought it was right for him to shop up here while taxing the rest of us, merely replied “Don’t you have anything better to do?”He was only expressing that brazen arrogance the new aristocracy has for the average citizen.
Attacking Mr. Brown as a buffoon does no one honor, particularly ‘liberals’ who claim to hold the high ground. If the man has actually been recorded saying or doing the things mentioned above, fine, it’s fair game; but if this is just a gratuitous attack on a conservative opponent Mr. McFadden finds objectionable, then it is distasteful at best. It will simply harden the convictions of those who already support the man without opening any minds or hearts to actual reasons or comments that could show why Mr. Brown is a person against whom one should vote if his opponent, like most Democrats, is simply the lesser of two evils.It would be good for Americans to have candidates to vote for, but as long as big money, on both sides of our limited political choices, and the media are choosing our candidates, we will rarely have people for whom we can vote with pride and conviction, and must therefore vote for the candidate who will do the least harm.Until we, the People, involve ourselves more deeply into our selection and election process, we are doomed to having candidates that represent the least common denominator rather than the greatest common factor.Respectfully,C.
Respectful Troll and prfesser both make good points. But isn’t it strange that if someone wants to write or film pornography or if the Oligarchs want to spend massive amounts of money to elect their puppet, the Supreme Court calls it free speech while someone who tells an ethnic joke or says something critical about another race is accused of a hate crime. I’m certainly not supporting anyone who makes such remarks, but my point is that it’s going to be difficult for the average citizen to make much headway in selecting legislators with vision and character against the enormous advantage the court has handed the Oligarchs.
try germany, 1920 through 1940. argentina, for the last 20 years. venezuela, for the last 15 years. greece, france, italy, ecuador. anywhere you want to look.
Har! I have to remember that one.I do remember the sick child who was declined healthcare that would have saved him because NH was so cheap it wouldn’t pay for it. They made a one-time exception. Perhaps they were embarrassed when people starting saying that “live free or die” was literally your choice in New Hampshire…
That was more or less my point. That is, there are distinctions to be made. Not every kind of speech is just like every other kind of speech. A slogan on a license plate is not the same kind of speech as the number on the plate. (But if the number were 666, could I refuse it on religious grounds?) And we can imagine that there are all sorts of other kinds of distinctions to be made. The Constitution doesn’t make these distinctions, but reasonable interpretations do, for this amendment, and for the other amendments.
moosemin about 10 years ago
When the Massachusetts legislature raised the tax on liquora few years ago, lots of other Mass. Pols drove over the border to buy their tax-free booze! One, who was caught on video, and asked if he thought it was right for him to shop up here while taxing the rest of us, merely replied “Don’t you have anything better to do?”He was only expressing that brazen arrogance the new aristocracy has for the average citizen.
Nighthawks Premium Member about 10 years ago
history is defined as anything fox news says it is
chazandru about 10 years ago
Attacking Mr. Brown as a buffoon does no one honor, particularly ‘liberals’ who claim to hold the high ground. If the man has actually been recorded saying or doing the things mentioned above, fine, it’s fair game; but if this is just a gratuitous attack on a conservative opponent Mr. McFadden finds objectionable, then it is distasteful at best. It will simply harden the convictions of those who already support the man without opening any minds or hearts to actual reasons or comments that could show why Mr. Brown is a person against whom one should vote if his opponent, like most Democrats, is simply the lesser of two evils.It would be good for Americans to have candidates to vote for, but as long as big money, on both sides of our limited political choices, and the media are choosing our candidates, we will rarely have people for whom we can vote with pride and conviction, and must therefore vote for the candidate who will do the least harm.Until we, the People, involve ourselves more deeply into our selection and election process, we are doomed to having candidates that represent the least common denominator rather than the greatest common factor.Respectfully,C.
Spooky D Cat about 10 years ago
Respectful Troll and prfesser both make good points. But isn’t it strange that if someone wants to write or film pornography or if the Oligarchs want to spend massive amounts of money to elect their puppet, the Supreme Court calls it free speech while someone who tells an ethnic joke or says something critical about another race is accused of a hate crime. I’m certainly not supporting anyone who makes such remarks, but my point is that it’s going to be difficult for the average citizen to make much headway in selecting legislators with vision and character against the enormous advantage the court has handed the Oligarchs.
lonecat about 10 years ago
Would his right to free speech permit him to tape over the license plate number?
louieglutz about 10 years ago
try germany, 1920 through 1940. argentina, for the last 20 years. venezuela, for the last 15 years. greece, france, italy, ecuador. anywhere you want to look.
Motivemagus about 10 years ago
Har! I have to remember that one.I do remember the sick child who was declined healthcare that would have saved him because NH was so cheap it wouldn’t pay for it. They made a one-time exception. Perhaps they were embarrassed when people starting saying that “live free or die” was literally your choice in New Hampshire…
rossevrymn about 10 years ago
Folks, here resides the troll of liberal cartoonists.
lonecat about 10 years ago
That was more or less my point. That is, there are distinctions to be made. Not every kind of speech is just like every other kind of speech. A slogan on a license plate is not the same kind of speech as the number on the plate. (But if the number were 666, could I refuse it on religious grounds?) And we can imagine that there are all sorts of other kinds of distinctions to be made. The Constitution doesn’t make these distinctions, but reasonable interpretations do, for this amendment, and for the other amendments.