doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com Offensive tag-lines

I'm a Republican...

So you'll have to excuse me for being alitte slOw...

What's a "Libertarian" ?

....a Democrat hooked on "fluoxetine".

Lets pray he doesn't create another disaster before his term is up.

I don't know how he survived the crash of 9/11...didn't you know he was flying the first plane.

Sounds like the old childhood whine: "he did it first!" But I can't recall anyone else in this forum doing any of the above. Which is one of the reasons I prefer this forum over the "others" - it's about guns, not politics. As a member wisely posted recently:

I see nothing wrong with using a tag line of a political nature. Wouldn't see anything wrong with "Rush is a big, fat idiot" as a tag line either. Why worry about it? You're going to see bumper stickers of that nature on vehicles belonging to people just like those who post here. If you don't want to discuss politics with said individual . . . don't. Ignore the bumper sticker. Ignore the tag line. Talk guns. Jim's a valued contributor here, and he would remain one whether he's a right wing crazy or a Commie pinko creep.

Lots of folks see nothing wrong in demonizing remarks about "kikes" and "niggers" and "greasers," Larry - that doesn't mean you should let them pass unchallenged. Silence can imply complicity.

Mutual respect is one of the hallmarks of this forum. It's worth an effort to keep it that way.

Jack, if you can't see a difference between a racial slur and a bumper sticker-like slogan during a political campaign, then you need new glasses. My long-time hunting partner and best friend is a former candidate for the Iowa senate, as a Democrat. Even he sees the humor (and certainly no harm) in the "Life's a bitch--don't vote for one!" bumper sticker.

Personally, I liked the bumper sticker I saw recently in the UP: "EARTH FIRST! We'll log the other planets later!"

The interesting thing about tag lines is that they're not directed at any individual, and especially not at any individual participant on this board. They're simply a reflection of the poster's philosophy, political or otherwise.

People these days take offense far too quickly. I spent too much time on campus and saw far too many instances of PC run amok to accept a PC police force as a good idea.

Things are sad indeed when folk mistake a metaphor for a simile, and don't see a distinction between "political discussion" and hate speech.

Debate on topics such as fiscal and foreign policy, health care, civil rights, immigration reform and - yes - gun control is political discussion. Equating a major American political party with terrorists is hate speech.

If more Germans had stood up against Nazi hate speech in the 1920s and '30s, a lot of lives - including American lives - might have been spared in WWII. Instead, they "lightened up" and let Germany descend into the Holocaust.

I believe in free and vigorous political discussion - that's how we resolve our differences in a democracy. But bumper-sticker hate speech resolves nothing - it only magnifies differences by setting Americans against each other. Those who accept demonization as legitimate political speech (and that's all too common these days) may be contributing to the demise of the world's greatest democracy.

"Hate speech" . . . Jack, you've even fallen into PC terminology. When you can't see the poster's face nor hear his voice, how do you know he "hates" anyone? Perhaps he's saying it with a smile . . . or have you forgotten that famous line from the classic Western novel, "The Virginian": "When you call me that, smile!"? If someone says, "Jack, you dirty SOB!"--well, you probably know from the tone of voice whether it's a serious insult . . . or maybe a "term of endearment" from a friend. Even more so if you're looking at the individual and can see his facial expression. In cyberspace? Not a chance.

Those who go around accusing others of "hate speech" every time they hear anything that offends them might want to take a closer look at the first amendment to the Constitution. It doesn't guarantee freedom of speech only if said speech offends no one. Freedom of speech carries with it the freedom to offend. And as long as others are free to say "that offends me", seems to me that's far enough--as opposed to shouting down the "offender" and his right to offend, if he wishes to do so.

I should leave this alone. Honest, I should. But Larry, certainly you are aware that political "discussion" in the era of talk radio has become so laced with invective and vituperation that it serves no purpose as dialog or discourse let alone verbal intercourse. You may not like the term "hate speach" but if it walks with a waddle and quacks, it is what it is.
Hell, I believe we have a right to "hate speach." I don't like it. It can even make me cringe. But the right to freedom is not limited by taste.
But it strikes me as inconsistant to denigrate Jack M. for his offense at the spewed invectives and then to say:
"Freedom of speech carries with it the freedom to offend. And as long as others are free to say "that offends me", seems to me that's far enough..."
My interpretation of Jack's take is that he believes such vituperation stifles true discourse.
My best regards, Jake