No comment? No condemnation?

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Someone with an iota of common sense would understand that a new point leading on from your name association was made.

I am so sorry. Was that comment intended to actually mean something?

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

No allusion to goebbels, thank you for playing.

The short form Joe [as in Joe DiGenova] is from the name Joseph. Joseph Goebbels was Hitler's propaganda minister.

Really it almost painful having to spell out such basic information.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

My comment was that I would respond the way I am responded to when I ask about people who advocate punishing others for speech. Which is that it's legal and their right. Which, for the record is in response to you asking about why people are not condemning this act of free speech.

Yes I realised that. Hence my question concerning the universality of free speech.

It is a right in the USA but do you consider it to be a universal right?

Or is free speech only something you consider applies to American citizens? If you do consider it to be a universal right, should the Allies have hanged Streicher?

It's a very simple question.

Furthermore, what is your position if someone acts on DiGenova's comments? Again, I repeat my observation, that with freedoms come responsibilities.

[Esther]

I am so sorry. Was that comment intended to actually mean something?

Yes. Associating the first name of Joseph with Goebbels. Do you associate all people named Joseph with Goebbels then? Do they first have to pass your criteria of whether they are fascist or not etc and then and only then do you make the association. I don't know how much clearer I can state this.

[Esther]

The short form Joe [as in Joe DiGenova] is from the name Joseph. Joseph Goebbels was Hitler's propaganda minister.

Really it almost painful having to spell out such basic information.

Try spelling out how incredibly distasteful it is to see a person possessing the name of Joseph, associated with Goebbels.

[CivilDiscourse]

Yes I realised that. Hence my question concerning the universality of free speech.

It is a right in the USA but do you consider it to be a universal right?

Or is free speech only something you consider applies to American citizens? If you do consider it to be a universal right, should the Allies have hanged Streicher?

It's a very simple question.

Furthermore, what is your position if someone acts on DiGenova's comments? Again, I repeat my observation, that with freedoms come responsibilities.

So, I'll explain my point then, since it seems you are entirely incapable of processing it.

Streicher is a complicated matter, as he and his newspaper were not entirely independent of the Nazi machine. This muddies the water about whether his speech was his own, or whether he was acting as a mouthpiece for Nazi's.

But to humor you. I'll be blunt. It is a universal right. So to simplify stuff, if Streicher was completely independent and separate from the Nazi party, his speech was protected, and he should not have been imprisoned, let alone hung for his speech. If someone acts on DiGenova's comments, that person is the one responsible for their acts. That doesn't mean DiGenova's speech played no part in the other's decision making, but where do we draw the line? After all, the rhetoric floating around is what drove James Hodgkinson to go to a congressional baseball game practice with a list of republican names and shoot them up? Was it the negative rhetoric against republicans and trump? Who do we hold responsible for that?

The thing is though, that just because free speech is a right, and should be free from deliberate punishment, it does not mean that it is free from criticism or condemnation.

However, when asked whether we should accept the idea of people calling for punishment of speech, the response from everyone suddenly goes from "Some speech is good, some is bad" to "it's legal and their right, why do you hate free speech?"

Hence my overall point. You are asking for condemnation, but like I've been told over and over "it's legal and their right" which seems to be the end of the conversation.

See this thread:
https://theologyweb.com/campus/forum...cary-sentiment

[rogue06]

And behavior.

That kind of got shot down a bit later.

The short form Joe [as in Joe DiGenova] is from the name Joseph. Joseph Goebbels was Hitler's propaganda minister.

Really it almost painful having to spell out such basic information.

But even if it was also based on behavior then my point would still stand.

Joe Biden appears to believe in the concept that if you tell a lie and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it^[1]. Even when he gets caught and forced to admit that what he said wasn't true, he has a habit of waiting awhile and then start repeating it. For instance his claim that he was the first member of his family ever to attend college. That one was part of the reason (along with plagiarizing that from a British politician's speech) he was forced to bow out of the presidential race back in the 80s. But then he's come back and continued to make the bogus claim. Most recently in a debate with Trump. And you know what? It looks like it worked. People started believing it. That line was praised in the MSM as an "excellent moment."



1. And yes I realize that isn't a quote.

[Mountain Man]

...should anyone be murdered by some fanatical Trump supporter who does take DiGenova's words literally...

Then it is entirely the fault of the person who perpetrated the crime. You are employing child's logic here. "Yeah, but he said!" Like I tell my kids, it doesn't matter what someone said, you're the one who chose to act.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Then it is entirely the fault of the person who perpetrated the crime. You are employing child's logic here. "Yeah, but he said!" Like I tell my kids, it doesn't matter what someone said, you're the one who chose to act.

That is far too simplistic an answer. However, I realise that simple is a middle name for some here.

[Gondwanaland]

The short form Joe [as in Joe DiGenova] is from the name Joseph. Joseph Goebbels was Hitler's propaganda minister.

Really it almost painful having to spell out such basic information.

So... same for JOE Biden?

[Juvenal]

That kind of got shot down a bit later.

She said diGenova was acting like a propaganda minister. That's behavior.

But even if it was also based on behavior then my point would still stand.

I don't think even you know what your point is anymore, but just in case, could you try repeating it. And by repeating it, I mean put down the long glass cylinder and write it again once the smoke's cleared.

Joe Biden appears to believe in the concept that if you tell a lie and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it^[1]. Even when he gets caught and forced to admit that what he said wasn't true, he has a habit of waiting awhile and then start repeating it. For instance his claim that he was the first member of his family ever to attend college. That one was part of the reason (along with plagiarizing that from a British politician's speech) he was forced to bow out of the presidential race back in the 80s. But then he's come back and continued to make the bogus claim. Most recently in a debate with Trump. And you know what? It looks like it worked. People started believing it. That line was praised in the MSM as an "excellent moment."

Sure, whatever ya say, rouge. Your reputation for strict adherence to the facts is enough for me.

1. And yes I realize that isn't a quote.

Or sourced, or acknowledging the unwitting irony of an entire category being added to the pinocchio list for the elephant in the room, or ...

[Mountain Man]

That is far too simplistic an answer.

Occam's Razor

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

So, I'll explain my point then, since it seems you are entirely incapable of processing it.

Streicher is a complicated matter, as he and his newspaper were not entirely independent of the Nazi machine. This muddies the water about whether his speech was his own, or whether he was acting as a mouthpiece for Nazi's.

Of course they were his own opinions. He was an ardent Nazi and anti-Semite.

But to humor you. I'll be blunt. It is a universal right.

Ah at last.

So to simplify stuff, if Streicher was completely independent and separate from the Nazi party, his speech was protected, and he should not have been imprisoned, let alone hung for his speech.

That is irrelevant. According to your comment he only ever exercised his universal right.

If someone acts on DiGenova's comments, that person is the one responsible for their acts.

Are you absolving Streicher from the violence directed against German Jews in the early 1930s?

That doesn't mean DiGenova's speech played no part in the other's decision making, but where do we draw the line? After all, the rhetoric floating around is what drove James Hodgkinson to go to a congressional baseball game practice with a list of republican names and shoot them up? Was it the negative rhetoric against republicans and trump? Who do we hold responsible for that?

And that exemplifies my comment that words have consequences.

Hence someone who professes to be an advocate should have had more sense given the tense situation within the USA at this moment.

The thing is though, that just because free speech is a right, and should be free from deliberate punishment, it does not mean that it is free from criticism or condemnation.

From that remark I assume you agree that those who condemned DiGenova for his irresponsible use of language [with the concomitant risk of his suggestions being acted upon by some lunatic] were totally justified to do so.

However, when asked whether we should accept the idea of people calling for punishment of speech, the response from everyone suddenly goes from "Some speech is good, some is bad" to "it's legal and their right, why do you hate free speech?"

As I have observed in the past, while free speech may be a universal right there are time when tact and discretion should be employed. For an individual to blurt out whatever comes into their head simply because they have the universal right to do so is not advisable.

Hence my overall point. You are asking for condemnation

No I am not asking for those things. I employed questions because I had not read anyone condemning DiGenova's lack of tact - or perhaps he too had a "senior moment".

, but like I've been told over and over "it's legal and their right" which seems to be the end of the conversation.

Yet it is not. You have stated that free speech is a universal right. However, if someone makes an inflammatory speech against the residents of house number 1354 and members of their audience then go and smash up that house and terrorise its residents are you alleging that the speaker who made those inflammatory comments is absolved entirely of any responsibility? Adolph never beat up a Jew on the street or picked up a brick and threw it through the window of a Jewish shop. Joe Goebbels never set fire to any synagogues. Are you contending that they are exonerated?

See this thread:
https://theologyweb.com/campus/forum...cary-sentiment

I do not see the relevance as I have no idea who these people are.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Occam's Razor

Not quite the same thing.

[rogue06]

[/INDENT]lao.jpg

FIFY n/c

But just so you can't again falsely claim that I can't support my contention...


Joe Biden referred to one of his favorite claims about himself during the first debate. It resulted in adulation from some in the MSM causing them to swoon and declare it was the best line of the night and really illustrated a sharp difference between him and that bad orange man.

For instance Politico’s Tim Alberta proclaimed that it was likely the "single-most effective line since he rode down the escalator." Over on CNN one of their political commentators, Tara Olivia Setmayer (who is also a contributor to ABC News) declared that it was an "excellent moment."

There is only one problem with it.

The claim is utterly false and has been repeatedly shown to be so going back several decades to when old Joe first started recounting his fairy tale. In fact when it was first uncovered as a lie it contributed to the scuttling of Biden's first failed presidential run back in the 1980s. Well, that and getting caught blatantly plagiarizing speeches. In fact the whole thing comes straight from one of the speeches he stole and he has apparently adopted it as part of his life.

Here is what he said that got them all so enamored:

"Guys like me, the first in my family to go to college... we are as good as anybody else, and guys like Trump, who inherited everything and squandered what they inherited, are the people I've always had a problem with"

Back in 1987 when Biden first claimed that he was the first member of his family to ever attend college he was quickly forced to backtrack and admit that was completely false. As the once esteemed New York Times put it:

Mr. Biden said … he had miscast some of his own forebears, painting them as having rather more humble origins than they in fact did. For example, borrowing Mr. Kinnock’s sentiments, Mr. Biden had said he was ‘the first in his family ever to go to university.’ In fact, Mr. Biden said today, ‘there are Finnegans, my mother’s family, that went to college.’

The title of the article says Biden claimed that his fake claim wasn't "malevolent" and while one may give him a pass on it then the problem is that since that time Biden has frequently repeated this admitted falsehood multiple times. For example the Washington Post chastised him for doing so in June of last year in a piece titled "Echoes of Biden’s 1987 plagiarism scandal continue to reverberate" noting that he is once again out there again saying things like "Why am I the first Kinnock in a thousand generations to be able to get to university?" and how at the end of a debate at the Iowa State Fair Biden was rhetorically asking "Why is it that Joe Biden is the first in his family ever to go to a university? . . . Is it because I’m the first Biden in a thousand generations to get a college and a graduate degree?" And of course he repeated the lie again at the debate.

Now, while the British politician (Neil Kinnock) who Biden had planarized and lifted biographical details from was indeed the first person in his family ever to attend college, the cold hard, indisputable truth is that Biden is hardly the first person in his family who went to and graduated from college. Some of those ancestors he typically describes as coal miners in order to emphasize his alleged humble origins were in fact not miners but college educated mining engineers.

Further, it isn't just the lie about his being the first person in his family ever to attend college. Biden has concocted an entire fantasy life around that lie, filled with numerous falsehoods utterly divorced from reality in order to make his college experience sound a lot more impressive.

Let's take a look at what he told a voter in New Hampshire about it back in 1987 when asked where he attended law school and where he placed in his class:

I think I probably have a much higher IQ than you do, I suspect

That's how it began which shows something never change. Biden angrily lashes out at voters -- even supporters -- who have the temerity to ask him an unscripted question. Like when he yelled at a union worker at an auto assembly plant last March snarling "I don't work for you!" as he angrily wagged his finger at him. Or a few months earlier he furiously challenged a questioner to a push-up contest after catching himself as he called him "a fats-." One can only wonder how he intended on ending that.

Anywho, back to the 1987 quote.

I went to law school on a full academic scholarship, the only one in my — in my class to have a full academic scholarship. In the first year in law school I decided didn’t want to be in law school and ended up in the bottom two-thirds of my class, and then decided I wanted to stay, went back to law school, and in fact ended up in the top half of my class. I won the international moot-court competition. I was the outstanding student in the political science department at the end of my year. I graduated with three degrees from undergraduate school and 165 credits — I only needed 123 credits

Meanwhile, in the real world where facts count and your personal truth does not trump reality...

• Biden did not receive a full academic scholarship as he falsely claimed, but rather got a half scholarship that was based on financial need
• Biden did not end up in the top half of his class as he falsely claimed, but instead graduated near the very bottom.
• Biden did not win the moot court competition as he falsely claimed. FWICT, I'm not even sure he even competed in it.
• Biden did not receive the outstanding student award at the University of Delaware either as he falsely claimed.
• Biden did not graduate with three degrees as he falsely claimed but rather with just one.

Oh. And he finished with yet another remark about comparing IQ's

And I’d be delighted to sit down and compare my IQ to yours if you’d like Frank.

Not long after those remarks, Biden was forced to concede it was all made up and shamefully dropped out of the race. But obviously he didn't learn or has actually convinced him that his concocted fantasies are true. Neither possibility bodes well.



Now, before anyone seeks to excuse Biden's continuing to lie about something that he even he has confessed was false by whining on about how Trump has also told a few stories about his relatives that aren't true, doing so just confirms that you are either missing or ignoring the point.

So let me spell it out.

The TDS crowd makes such a fuss about Trump's lying that one would think that they possess a knee jerk viscerally negative reaction against any politician behaving in the same manner -- especially one who after admitting that the story wasn't true yet still continues to regularly retell it again and again as if it were true.

I think it is accurate to say if you merely shrug and hand wave off Biden's serious issue with lying, then you are tacitly acknowledging that you really don't care about politicians being dishonest. Instead you are revealing that all you actually care about is finding something where you can cry about how bad the orange man is.