Yeah, I hate it when they do prejudicial things like make blanket statements about a whole group of people.
Forbin is right. Conservatives near any little dust speck of power are garbage. When they're totally de-nutted and harmless, they're lovely people.
It’s more their hatred of the people of this nation and their eagerness to burn it down if they can’t control it. But yeah, sure, the mean things they say too.
Although, I'm not even sure how Uncle Tom came to be Uncle Tom, having actually read the book. The guy is just a simple man who believes in God and took his master who sold him at his word that he'd but him back the minute he got out of the financial hole the family was in (spoilers: he does come back, but the next slave owner had beaten him to death the day before) He wasn't a guy who was shucking and jiving and loved his white overlords or even suggesting wed be better off enslaved. At any rate, it's certainly not a phrase whites ought to throw out. Liet got his ass handed to him for that before, and rightfully so (even if the motivations of people like Volpone and Sokar were suspect). Blacks have every right to vote against their self interests and be wrong without having their blackness be judged for it.
It's not the book, but the stage adaptation, that's the issue. The book version is heroic, but the stage producers modified the character into the sellout: https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=93059468&t=1550866872038
I guess we should just be lucky that his hand is all Justice Thomas is showing. Because he's a sex offender.
Show of hands, how many of you wokescolds actually read the article in which Justice Thomas stated that it might be time to look at NYT vs. Sullivan again and why he made that comment? Do you realize that Justice Thomas made his comments because the current law makes it all but impossible for one of Bill Cosby's accusers to sue Bill Cosby for libel?
Yep. But since the ruling is "working backwards", is there a chance that it might need to be revisited?
It seems the problem is how the courts chose to define a "public person," not the "actual malice" standard. Revisit the former perhaps.
Geez, doesn't Nova's post & editorializing presuppose it's almost certainly bad info? "Interpret what you think Nova means and assume it's probably the opposite" has been one of the best WF rules of thumb. Lee Kwan Yew built Singapore into a first world country from a shithole doing basically the same thing - Lee said 'ask yourself what Nova would say and then do the opposite' (actually, Lee said Clement Atlee, but probably would've been the same result).
Yes, but at the end we know his actual motivation is to open up the ability for people to sue news and reporters for having reported on his sex abuse scandals and allowing him to get revenge on them because those were not proven in a court of law. The potential damage to free speech becomes far too much of a problem when you consider balance. Still, if he does get his way Faux news is going to be destroyed and any news organization who wants to avoid being destroyed by libel suits will avoid anything controversial including the right wing lie bubble. Think about allowing the press to sue Donnie little hands for his libelous accusations against any true reporting on his bullshit. The right lies a lot more than the left.
I've never understood the reasoning that individuals who are considered "public figures" have to prove "malice" but private persons merely have to prove "negligence". Why not treat people the same? It seems by giving greater protections from liability to those who report on public figures that you're basically saying that under the law a degree of falsehoods regarding public figures is acceptable.
I agree. Need RBG to finally retire and be replaced by a conservative. Then we'll have the court I want.
