tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10887668.post114174584250654757..comments2024-01-15T05:16:04.605-06:00Comments on JackeHammer: Those Wacky Liberals and Democrats and Their Free Speech BiasJackie Meltonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10554151805461400754noreply@blogger.comBlogger14125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10887668.post-1141874148715511582006-03-08T21:15:00.000-06:002006-03-08T21:15:00.000-06:00Anonymous, I am sure that your comment would be re...Anonymous, I am sure that your comment would be really funny if I just knew what you meant by it. Would you please clarify it for me? I could use a good laugh. :)Jackie Meltonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10554151805461400754noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10887668.post-1141871292062904662006-03-08T20:28:00.000-06:002006-03-08T20:28:00.000-06:00Paging Chuck Woolery!Paging Chuck Woolery!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10887668.post-1141778615315331592006-03-07T18:43:00.000-06:002006-03-07T18:43:00.000-06:00Angel, likewise, I never claimed that you HAD said...Angel, likewise, I never claimed that you HAD said that I don't have the right to write about whatever I want to write about. I think we just had a misunderstanding, if I contributed to that, I apologize. What I was referring to that you said and what I was referring to that Brandon said and Boortz's blog entry were not really related.<BR/><BR/>I would probably agree with you that you shouldn't reply to me though, because you seem to be very sensitive and always accusing me of taking things personally when all I happen to be doing is making an effort to speak for myself and set the record straight rather than allow others to assume things about me. <BR/><BR/>If you don't want me to contribute at your blog then don't suck me into your posts either, by posting your comment there as a reply to MY blog entry you gave the impression that I might disagree with you, I actually don't. <BR/><BR/>I don't mind trying to actually have a conversation with a Christian who views things differently than I do, even if at times it might get a little heated, but that's just me. It seems to bother you to get involved in a discussion wherein people aren't all on the same page, you evidently blog for a different reason than I do. It's one thing to be totally tolerant of everyone and everything, as I think you aspire to be, it's another to actually try to communicate with others. I have never found communicating with others to be a totally peaceful endeavor. People just don't always agree, sometimes conversations heat up but most of the time I find that if one hangs with them long enough they'll eventually cool down and the people involved in those conversations generally come out on the other side having actually learned something about each other, each other's views and themselves. I like that sort of exchange wherein I can learn about others and myself, if you don't that's your business, I just wanted you and those readers at your blog to understand it wasn't my intention to be divisive, sometimes you have to cross through the division to find the unity, would you disagree?<BR/><BR/>I actually value your viewpoints and enjoy reading your blog, I'm sorry that you don't understand the concept of what I'm doing.Jackie Meltonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10554151805461400754noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10887668.post-1141777062889374912006-03-07T18:17:00.000-06:002006-03-07T18:17:00.000-06:00Jacke, why you would pull me into this post, I hav...Jacke, why you would pull me into this post, I have no clue. I never said that you do not have the right to talk about whatever you want and I have already stated that you misunderstood my post and that it was not about you or your intentions ... and that I had not made any judgments regarding your intentions. Yet, you still claim that I am misreading your intentions and mischaracterize my comments here. And, this comes after you took a post about me and tried to make it about you and that whole "conservative" vs "progressive" thing you have going on. You did the exact same thing on my post about homosexuality. Even your title on this post is totally adversarial.<BR/><BR/>I think it would be best if I just don't respond to you or anything you write anymore. I think I said this once before, but I really think I need to stick to it. I wish you all the best, but I just don't find it possible to actually have a conversation with you amd if this is the kind of behavior you find unifying ... then we definitely have different views on that.Angela Belt-Newcomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00712360772163058718noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10887668.post-1141764037098949602006-03-07T14:40:00.000-06:002006-03-07T14:40:00.000-06:00Lol, at Brandon's blog"Dan Lewis said,March 7, 200...Lol, at Brandon's blog<BR/><BR/>"Dan Lewis said,<BR/><BR/>March 7, 2006 at 2:03 pm <BR/><BR/>Brandon’s a hypocrite because…<BR/><BR/>1. On the one hand he wants free speech.<BR/>2. On the other hand, he doesn’t want to let conservatives have free speech.<BR/>3. He displays this by berating a person’s argument who told him to move the fuck to China.<BR/>4. He should just let people say whatever they like, because that’s what freedom of speech is about.<BR/><BR/>It’s not too hard to imagine steps 5 through 8 of the future course of this argument:<BR/><BR/>5. On the one hand, Brandon wants to use his free speech to define free speech.<BR/><BR/>6. On the other hand, he wants to prevent others from using their free speech to define free speech.<BR/><BR/>7. But then, he wants to use his free speech to explain that defining free speech does not prevent others from using their free speech to define free speech.<BR/><BR/>8. On the other hand, he wants to prevent others from using their free speech to argue that defining free speech does in fact prevent them from using their free speech to define free speech.<BR/><BR/>I am starting to buckle under the g-force of this argument."<BR/><BR/>9. Jacke is preventing Brandon's freedom of speech by arguing that...Eeeeeeeeeeek!<BR/><BR/>I'm "starting to buckle under the g-force of this argument," too, Dan! ;)Jackie Meltonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10554151805461400754noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10887668.post-1141763649273291042006-03-07T14:34:00.000-06:002006-03-07T14:34:00.000-06:00The comment I deleted was my own.I'm having a litt...The comment I deleted was my own.<BR/><BR/>I'm having a little glitch with my blog today and the last comment I posted posted twice. :)Jackie Meltonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10554151805461400754noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10887668.post-1141763034336038582006-03-07T14:23:00.000-06:002006-03-07T14:23:00.000-06:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Jackie Meltonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10554151805461400754noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10887668.post-1141762947041894972006-03-07T14:22:00.000-06:002006-03-07T14:22:00.000-06:00Nope, Brandon still doesn't get it. Here's what h...Nope, Brandon still doesn't get it. Here's what he says in reply to my blog entry at his own blog, http://badchristian.com/index.php,<BR/><BR/>"Honestly, I’m really only posting this here so that someone with “Jacke-translating-ability” can help me out with what the hell she’s trying to argue.<BR/><BR/>As far as I can ascertain the argument goes like this:<BR/><BR/>Brandon’s a hypocrite because…<BR/><BR/>1. On the one hand he wants free speech.<BR/> <BR/>2. On the other hand, he doesn’t want to let conservatives have free speech.<BR/> <BR/>3. He displays this by berating a person’s argument who told him to move the fuck to China.<BR/> <BR/>4. He should just let people say whatever they like, because that’s what freedom of speech is about."<BR/><BR/>First of all Brandon has admitted in the past that we're ALL hypocrites and I agreed with that assessment. We ARE all hypocrites and that includes Brandon, and that includes ME.<BR/><BR/>Secondly, he has intimated that he wants to be able to say whatever the heck he wants to say without feeling stifled by others who disagree with him. I assert that if he feels that others disagreeing with him stifles his own freedom of speech then it is his problem not mine, not anyone else's and nothing anyone else says in any way prohibits him to speak freely, no matter how much whining to the contrary in which he engages. <BR/><BR/>Thirdly, it is not so much that he berated another for suggesting he could move to China but that he took that to mean that he was not allowed to exercise his free speech rights, that somehow the poster's suggestion negated his own right to free speech. Brandon can say what he wants, the commenter can reply what he wants, neither anything Brandon says or anything the commenter said removed the free speech rights of the other. <BR/><BR/>My problem with this whole scenario has been that in the course of taking offense at one single sentence in an overall lengthy comment full of valid points and questions Brandon chose to END the conversation by calling or inferring that the commenter was a hypocrite and was promoting totalitarianism. Wha!? <BR/><BR/>In other words, Brandon was offended! Oh! Ouch! We can't have that! So all dialog is stopped with first this sarcastic remark from Brandon:<BR/><BR/>"I think I get where this is going.<BR/><BR/>I’m wrong, you’re right.<BR/>You’re brilliant and experienced, I’m stupid and ignorant.<BR/>I make no good points, yours are laced with irrefutable logic.<BR/><BR/>I think this conversation is over, Ms. akwardly annonymous person."<BR/><BR/>and then blogging about the horror of someone suggesting that if he doesn't like the U.S. he should move to China.<BR/><BR/>Again, all I am saying is <BR/><BR/>"Say what you want, allow him or her to say what he/she wants, DEBATE THE TOPIC, NOT THE STYLE, THE MOTIVES, THE PERSON'S PERSONALITY, that's all I was getting at. :)"<BR/><BR/>I know, it's confusing and hard to wrap your mind around, I even confuse myself ;) but nothing someone else says can take away your freedom of speech (unless you commit a crime in the process). That works both ways and that is why I asked at the end of my post, which I don't think Brandon read in entirety because he missed the part where I stated that Brandon didn't suggest that the commenter had no right to invite him to China, WHAT'S ALL THE BITCHIN' ABOUT????Jackie Meltonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10554151805461400754noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10887668.post-1141755956227758472006-03-07T12:25:00.000-06:002006-03-07T12:25:00.000-06:00;);)Jackie Meltonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10554151805461400754noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10887668.post-1141755625440168092006-03-07T12:20:00.000-06:002006-03-07T12:20:00.000-06:00I know, you still like Brandon. It's just frustra...I know, you still like Brandon. It's just frustrating sometimes, isn't it? :-)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10887668.post-1141752854299019872006-03-07T11:34:00.000-06:002006-03-07T11:34:00.000-06:00That's BS, Brandon, and that's about as respectful...That's BS, Brandon, and that's about as respectfully as I can say it. I just finished reading some of the exchange and Skeptic and Shaggy Doodle (?) made some very valid points which you got sarcastic about and ignored and then posted your nice little revel in freedom of speech. <BR/><BR/>You're still doing the same thing that you did to me, instead of discussing the subject you run and hide behind your right to say whatever you want to say while not being willing to extend that priviledge to someone with an opposing view, instead you want to promote a big fight about something concerning a personal grievance. <BR/><BR/>NOWHERE did anyone say that you had no right to say what you want and NOWHERE that I read did anyone say that you wanted a totalitarian style government. A nice avoidance of the real issue at hand, that's all it was.Jackie Meltonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10554151805461400754noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10887668.post-1141752383378424122006-03-07T11:26:00.000-06:002006-03-07T11:26:00.000-06:00I tried to have a conversation. He told me if I d...I tried to have a conversation. He told me if I didn't like the US, I should move to China.<BR/><BR/>I explained in quite detail in my post why his statement was hypocritical. I'm sorry if you didn't understand it.Brandonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06960732995828439466noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10887668.post-1141750490976172792006-03-07T10:54:00.000-06:002006-03-07T10:54:00.000-06:00Brandon, my point is that by you insinuating that ...Brandon, my point is that by you insinuating that this "going to China" statement is hypocritical and some sort of an indication that he or she supports a totalitarian form of government you are engaging in the very same tactic you despise in him. <BR/><BR/>Why can't the two of you just have a conversation? Why does it end up being about who said what, how and why? I'd like to see people actually discuss what they are discussing rather than beating each other down for having a different point of view. <BR/><BR/>I could say the same thing you have said about him/her, by suggesting you move to China he/she is not in any way suggesting you have no RIGHT to say whatever you would like to say, how does that make him hypocritical or totalitarian-like, at least any MORE SO than you?<BR/><BR/>Say what you want, allow him to say what he wants, debate the topic, not the style, the motives, the person's personality, that's all I was getting at. :)Jackie Meltonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10554151805461400754noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10887668.post-1141749978750983972006-03-07T10:46:00.000-06:002006-03-07T10:46:00.000-06:00Jacke,I never said that the commenter in question ...Jacke,<BR/><BR/>I never said that the commenter in question didn't have the <I>right</I> to say what they said. They have the same rights that I do, and I never asserted otherwise. In fact, I feel I pretty clearly asserted the opposite.<BR/><BR/>However, just because someone has the <I>right</I> to say things, doesn't make them <I>right</I>. My critique was a defense of free speech, yes, but it was also an exploration of the hypocritical nature of using such free speech. The very use of that "go to China" thing, while anyone has the right to say it, they are also--by saying it--working against the very right they're enjoying.Brandonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06960732995828439466noreply@blogger.com