Is this the high-water mark of our freedoms? Must-see.

News and events of the day
Post Reply
gounion
Posts: 3959
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2021 4:59 pm

Is this the high-water mark of our freedoms? Must-see.

Post by gounion »

Please watch this video of Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg. He asks the question - in history, we have moved to more basic, fundamental freedoms. He questions if this is the high water mark, and if we're headed in a dark direction.

I dare our conservatives to watch this and respond.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ysZYwjuFes
User avatar
carmenjonze
Posts: 5515
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2021 3:06 am

Re: Is this the high-water mark of our freedoms? Must-see.

Post by carmenjonze »

Such a good speaker.

F. these conservative wastrels and laggards around here. Dumb fascist enablers.
________________________________

The way to right wrongs is to
Shine the light of truth on them.

~ Ida B. Wells
________________________________
Motor City
Posts: 739
Joined: Thu Oct 28, 2021 5:46 pm

Re: Is this the high-water mark of our freedoms? Must-see.

Post by Motor City »

Hes posturing. Sounds like hes trying to condition people into accepting some unnecessary and awful conditions like there's just nothing they can do about it. Like they are going to make some awful changes and try to pass it off as someone else doing it. again.
Image
User avatar
ProfX
Posts: 2120
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2021 3:15 pm
Location: Earth

Re: Is this the high-water mark of our freedoms? Must-see.

Post by ProfX »

Well, he was asking a question. Are we about to enter an era where instead of expanding Americans' rights, as we have for the last few decades, we're now headed for, well, reactionary retrenchment on all fronts (not just reproductive choice)?

I don't think he was conditioning people to accept that, if things head that way. The key theme in the speech is that things shouldn't be that way, and Americans should resist those trying to stop our march toward the more perfect union.

He was talking primarily about Roe. If there are to be awful changes on that front, he and the admin are not going to be the ones making them. Didn't seem to me he was telling anybody to "accept" that, or anything. Of course he knows as a gay man his freedom and right to marry and adopt children could be next on the chopping block.
"Don't believe every quote attributed to people on the Internet" -- Abraham Lincoln :D
User avatar
carmenjonze
Posts: 5515
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2021 3:06 am

Re: Is this the high-water mark of our freedoms? Must-see.

Post by carmenjonze »

Motor City wrote: Sun May 08, 2022 11:30 pm Sounds like hes trying to condition people into accepting some unnecessary and awful conditions like there's just nothing they can do about it.
?

How is he posturing when these measures affect him directly?
________________________________

The way to right wrongs is to
Shine the light of truth on them.

~ Ida B. Wells
________________________________
User avatar
carmenjonze
Posts: 5515
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2021 3:06 am

Re: Is this the high-water mark of our freedoms? Must-see.

Post by carmenjonze »

ProfX wrote: Mon May 09, 2022 6:01 am Well, he was asking a question. Are we about to enter an era where instead of expanding Americans' rights, as we have for the last few decades, we're now headed for, well, reactionary retrenchment on all fronts (not just reproductive choice)?

I don't think he was conditioning people to accept that, if things head that way. The key theme in the speech is that things shouldn't be that way, and Americans should resist those trying to stop our march toward the more perfect union.

He was talking primarily about Roe. If there are to be awful changes on that front, he and the admin are not going to be the ones making them. Didn't seem to me he was telling anybody to "accept" that, or anything. Of course he knows as a gay man his freedom and right to marry and adopt children could be next on the chopping block.
I think people very easily forget how deeply reproductive rights are connected to LGBTQ rights. Not just by SCOTUS legal precedent, but in freedom from forced heterosexuality and forced childbearing.

The end of Roe most especially affects us womb-owners, but Roe, Loving, Bostock, Obergefell, etc. are predicated on Griswold, which ensures privacy in the bedroom and dr’s office, free from government surveillance.

That’s why these authoritarians want to get rid of it.
________________________________

The way to right wrongs is to
Shine the light of truth on them.

~ Ida B. Wells
________________________________
Glennfs
Posts: 2207
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2021 12:54 pm

Re: Is this the high-water mark of our freedoms? Must-see.

Post by Glennfs »

He is a very articulate and charismatic speaker. It appears he must be gearing up at a White House run or maybe on the ticket as VP.
Two things of note

1 there is no don't say gay law. There is a parent rights law which gives parents more of a say in their children's education.
In other words parents have more freedom to tell the government what they require and expect.

2 This guys department of transportation is seriously considering making all trucks choked back to a maximum of 65mph.
Which would cost me about $13,000 a year in income.
Unless of course rates would go up as it would create even more demand.

Typical liberal logic. I am a highly trained professional driver with around 3.5 million miles driven.
I need to slow down.......but........
Amateur drivers can buy vehicles which do well over 100mph. I have forward radar. Yesterday I was passed by a guy doing 117, the record is 122. Every day amateur drivers pass me doing 100mph.

Also a 75 year old retired person with zero training can buy a huge RV and then tow a car behind it.

But professional drivers need to drive no faster than 65. Should truck speed be regulated yes to a maximum of 73mph
" I am a socialist " Bernie Sanders
User avatar
carmenjonze
Posts: 5515
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2021 3:06 am

Re: Is this the high-water mark of our freedoms? Must-see.

Post by carmenjonze »

A lot of liberal heterosexuals and cis people still really don’t get how homophobia and the closet works. Or that even with the end of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, the federal Defense of Marriage Act, and rulings like Lawrence v Texas and Obergefell, is still not that safe to live as a free, out person in most parts of the country. Heck, most parts of g.d. San Francisco.

It’s even more so for trans people, whose physical safety depends on people not knowing, another type of classic closet.

Because the government has always backed up their sexuality and gender norms, I think it’s often hard to comprehend that all of us, millennials-age and up, were born into a country with laws designed to eliminate you.

The rights are extremely new, not even a decade old in many aspects.
________________________________

The way to right wrongs is to
Shine the light of truth on them.

~ Ida B. Wells
________________________________
Glennfs
Posts: 2207
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2021 12:54 pm

Re: Is this the high-water mark of our freedoms? Must-see.

Post by Glennfs »

carmenjonze wrote: Mon May 09, 2022 8:23 am I think people very easily forget how deeply reproductive rights are connected to LGBTQ rights. Not just by SCOTUS legal precedent, but in freedom from forced heterosexuality and forced childbearing.

The end of Roe most especially affects us womb-owners, but Roe, Loving, Bostock, Obergefell, Lawrence, etc. are predicated on Griswold, which ensures privacy in the bedroom and dr’s office, free from government surveillance.

That’s why these authoritarians want to get rid of it.
So tell me which justices are going to look Clarence Thomas in the eye and say your marriage is illegal
" I am a socialist " Bernie Sanders
gounion
Posts: 3959
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2021 4:59 pm

Re: Is this the high-water mark of our freedoms? Must-see.

Post by gounion »

Glennfs wrote: Mon May 09, 2022 8:26 am So tell me which justices are going to look Clarence Thomas in the eye and say your marriage is illegal
They'll just wait till he dies. But I wouldn't be surprised if Thomas were in favor of overturning Loving v. Virginia. After all, he wouldn't have to worry, DC wouldn't make interracial marriage illegal, But Alabama sure would!

But let's be clear - it's your party that says that Loving v. Virginia was wrongly decided. And you'll vote for candidates that want to change that. After all, how many times did you vote for Strom Thurmond?
User avatar
carmenjonze
Posts: 5515
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2021 3:06 am

Re: Is this the high-water mark of our freedoms? Must-see.

Post by carmenjonze »

Glennfs wrote: Mon May 09, 2022 8:22 am He is a very articulate and charismatic speaker.
But is he clean, tho.
1 there is no don't say gay law. There is a parent rights law which gives parents more of a say in their children's education.
In other words parents have more freedom to tell the government what they require and expect.
Not only are you a dishonest, conservative liar, you're also clearly very confused.

You also clearly did not listen to the man's comments, starting at around 5:30.

The Don't Say Gay law has nothing whatsoever to do with "giving parents more of a say in their children's education," listen to what the man just said starting at 5:30.

He is a parent, and so are tons of other queer and trans people. I myself was a step-parent, so I understand on a very personal level what these laws mean better than you do. These laws are designed to silence them and their children, and re-implement the government-forced closet on LGBTQ families.

I also notice your own language depends on the gubbamint for "more of a say." That's not very government-independent of you, but it sure is a page right out of anti-Brown v Board of education ideology.

Finally, you parade around here pretending to be pro gay marriage or whatever, all while ignorning what every single LGBTQ rights organization in the country recognizes: that these laws are a full-frontal wedge issue attack on queer and trans rights.

None of those rights are even 20 years old.

2 This guys department of transportation is seriously considering making all trucks choked back to a maximum of 65mph.
Which would cost me about $13,000 a year in income.
Yawn. Go write your congressperson.

Oh wait, all your congresspersons also just happen to be antigay as hell, which is why men like you put them in there in the first place. I mean, I do get that you conservative cishetero males get bewildered and threatened any time your interests aren't centered. But don't try and derail the thread topic with this attention-seeking victimhood act.
________________________________

The way to right wrongs is to
Shine the light of truth on them.

~ Ida B. Wells
________________________________
gounion
Posts: 3959
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2021 4:59 pm

Re: Is this the high-water mark of our freedoms? Must-see.

Post by gounion »

Glennfs wrote: Mon May 09, 2022 8:22 am 1 there is no don't say gay law. There is a parent rights law which gives parents more of a say in their children's education.
In other words parents have more freedom to tell the government what they require and expect.
Yes, there IS a don't say gay law. And you support it. It allows parents to sue schools for money if they talk about homosexuality - at any level.

So much for your support of gay rights. You don't say that anymore, do you? As Nixon's man Ron Ziegler once said, "That statement is no longer operational".
User avatar
ProfX
Posts: 2120
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2021 3:15 pm
Location: Earth

Re: Is this the high-water mark of our freedoms? Must-see.

Post by ProfX »

Glennfs wrote: Mon May 09, 2022 8:22 am 1 there is no don't say gay law. There is a parent rights law which gives parents more of a say in their children's education.
In other words parents have more freedom to tell the government what they require and expect.
Yeah, you continue to describe this in fascinatingly Orwellian terms.

Which parents?

A lot of parents in this state don't agree this is respecting their rights, OR that of their kids, let alone teachers.

Like this one:
https://wusfnews.wusf.usf.edu/education ... ons-school.

Parents have a say in their kids' education. Always have. They can go to school board meetings, and hopefully make respectful requests with reasonable points, instead of screaming, flicking spittle, and throwing around astroturf literature. Always have had that ability, long before this law. Now, that doesn't mean they get everything they want. They might want the school board to force teachers not to discuss gays or trans kids ever; that doesn't mean they have to LISTEN. Especially if it's not what the MAJORITY of parents in the school district want. That's how it SHOULD work.
Last edited by ProfX on Mon May 09, 2022 9:03 am, edited 2 times in total.
"Don't believe every quote attributed to people on the Internet" -- Abraham Lincoln :D
User avatar
carmenjonze
Posts: 5515
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2021 3:06 am

Re: Is this the high-water mark of our freedoms? Must-see.

Post by carmenjonze »

Glennfs wrote: Mon May 09, 2022 8:26 am So tell me which justices are going to look Clarence Thomas in the eye and say your marriage is illegal
Clarence Thomas is just another dangerous negro to you Southern Strategy types, until he's useful as a token in your wedge politics.

Reminder: Jesse Helms is the architect of wedge politics. He used to get published in your favorite newspaper, the White Citizens Council newsletter.

viewtopic.php?p=24028#p24028

Here is Jesse Helms throwing in for the mass murdering white-conservative war criminal at My Lai. Maybe you read this one when it came out, dunno.

The Citizen, May 1, 1971, Ole Miss Libraries

Image

Image

Image
:problem:
________________________________

The way to right wrongs is to
Shine the light of truth on them.

~ Ida B. Wells
________________________________
User avatar
carmenjonze
Posts: 5515
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2021 3:06 am

Re: Is this the high-water mark of our freedoms? Must-see.

Post by carmenjonze »

gounion wrote: Mon May 09, 2022 8:43 am They'll just wait till he dies. But I wouldn't be surprised if Thomas were in favor of overturning Loving v. Virginia. After all, he wouldn't have to worry, DC wouldn't make interracial marriage illegal, But Alabama sure would!

But let's be clear - it's your party that says that Loving v. Virginia was wrongly decided. And you'll vote for candidates that want to change that. After all, how many times did you vote for Strom Thurmond?
The only reason for this guy to trot out their handpicked favorite "Clarence Thomas" is for tokenistic purposes, and it doesn't even make any sense, anyway.

It's really stupid to invoke "Clarence Thomas" on this issue, since he is also as vanti-LGBTQ as the venal white conservatives he's been trying to impress since his Holy Cross U. days. :problem:
________________________________

The way to right wrongs is to
Shine the light of truth on them.

~ Ida B. Wells
________________________________
gounion
Posts: 3959
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2021 4:59 pm

Re: Is this the high-water mark of our freedoms? Must-see.

Post by gounion »

Glennfs wrote: Mon May 09, 2022 8:22 am 2 This guys department of transportation is seriously considering making all trucks choked back to a maximum of 65mph.
Which would cost me about $13,000 a year in income.
Unless of course rates would go up as it would create even more demand.

Typical liberal logic. I am a highly trained professional driver with around 3.5 million miles driven.
I need to slow down.......but........
Amateur drivers can buy vehicles which do well over 100mph. I have forward radar. Yesterday I was passed by a guy doing 117, the record is 122. Every day amateur drivers pass me doing 100mph.

Also a 75 year old retired person with zero training can buy a huge RV and then tow a car behind it.

But professional drivers need to drive no faster than 65. Should truck speed be regulated yes to a maximum of 73mph
It's not "liberal logic". It's being pushed by Trucking Associations and by Republicans in congress and the senate too.
Glennfs
Posts: 2207
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2021 12:54 pm

Re: Is this the high-water mark of our freedoms? Must-see.

Post by Glennfs »

Odd how people who support Joe Biden's ministry of truth are concerned about personal freedoms
" I am a socialist " Bernie Sanders
gounion
Posts: 3959
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2021 4:59 pm

Re: Is this the high-water mark of our freedoms? Must-see.

Post by gounion »

Glennfs wrote: Mon May 09, 2022 9:11 am Odd how people who support Joe Biden's ministry of truth are concerned about personal freedoms
What a lie. But you'll believe anything Donald Trump tells you, won't you?
User avatar
carmenjonze
Posts: 5515
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2021 3:06 am

Re: Is this the high-water mark of our freedoms? Must-see.

Post by carmenjonze »

gounion wrote: Mon May 09, 2022 8:58 am Yes, there IS a don't say gay law. And you support it. It allows parents to sue schools for money if they talk about homosexuality - at any level.

So much for your support of gay rights. You don't say that anymore, do you? As Nixon's man Ron Ziegler once said, "That statement is no longer operational".
Well, he never did support gay rights.

Kept trying to tell people that. Can't trust these conservatives as far as you can throw them.

They are aided and abetted by handpicked LGBTQ Ernst Röhms like Andrew Sullivan, Christian Walker, Tammy Bruce, Milo Yiannopolous (hey wait, is he an ex-gay, now?), Caitlyn Jenner, and other misfit toys. :problem:
________________________________

The way to right wrongs is to
Shine the light of truth on them.

~ Ida B. Wells
________________________________
User avatar
carmenjonze
Posts: 5515
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2021 3:06 am

Re: Is this the high-water mark of our freedoms? Must-see.

Post by carmenjonze »

Glennfs wrote: Mon May 09, 2022 9:11 am Odd how people who support Joe Biden's ministry of truth are concerned about personal freedoms
You didn't even read 1984, just like you did not watch the video.

Go trot out Clarence Thomas again, and sit down.
Last edited by carmenjonze on Mon May 09, 2022 9:19 am, edited 1 time in total.
________________________________

The way to right wrongs is to
Shine the light of truth on them.

~ Ida B. Wells
________________________________
User avatar
ProfX
Posts: 2120
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2021 3:15 pm
Location: Earth

Re: Is this the high-water mark of our freedoms? Must-see.

Post by ProfX »

Glennfs wrote: Mon May 09, 2022 9:11 am Odd how people who support Joe Biden's ministry of truth are concerned about personal freedoms
You should say what you mean. Only because I read the news, I know you're referring to the newly created DHS Disinformation Board.

Now the big problem I have is you keep in turn spreading disinformation about its actual functions and roles, something I addressed in an earlier post, and unsurprisingly, you ignored.
"Don't believe every quote attributed to people on the Internet" -- Abraham Lincoln :D
User avatar
Drak
Posts: 1511
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2021 3:02 pm

Re: Is this the high-water mark of our freedoms? Must-see.

Post by Drak »

The right are the ones at spreading disinformation and peddling it as truth. That’s what the Ministry of Truth is. That’s what Fox News is. The poster is parroting projection, as usual.
Glennfs
Posts: 2207
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2021 12:54 pm

Re: Is this the high-water mark of our freedoms? Must-see.

Post by Glennfs »

carmenjonze wrote: Mon May 09, 2022 9:13 am You didn't even read 1984, just like you did not watch the video.

Go trot out Clarence Thomas again, and sit down.
Yes a read 1984 a very long time ago and the ministry of truth fits perfectly with 1984.
" I am a socialist " Bernie Sanders
Glennfs
Posts: 2207
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2021 12:54 pm

Re: Is this the high-water mark of our freedoms? Must-see.

Post by Glennfs »

Drak wrote: Mon May 09, 2022 9:22 am The right are the ones at spreading disinformation and peddling it as truth. That’s what the Ministry of Truth is. That’s what Fox News is. The poster is parroting projection, as usual.
I do not understand how any person on the left could support the ministry of truth.
" I am a socialist " Bernie Sanders
gounion
Posts: 3959
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2021 4:59 pm

Re: Is this the high-water mark of our freedoms? Must-see.

Post by gounion »

Glennfs wrote: Mon May 09, 2022 9:23 am I do not understand how any person on the left could support the ministry of truth.
Because that’s not what it is. It’s just a panel that refutes the outright lies of Donald Trump.
Post Reply