• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Liberals in response to NH teens doing stupid crap:

Again, inviting someone else to speak on the subject instead of her, is in no way, shape or form punishing her.

Based on that logic, having her speak in turn punishes every woman who has ever spent time in prison because they weren't asked to speak.


.

Ostracizing women who spent time in prison and were rehabilitated like you advocate IS punishing them whether they were asked to speak or not. By your logic no one including those who are rehabilited should ever be let out of prison let alone invited to speak in public.
 
Actually, it was a worldwide protest to advocate legislation and policies regarding human rights and other issues, including women's rights, immigration reform, healthcare reform, reproductive rights, the natural environment, LGBTQ rights, racial equality, freedom of religion, and workers' rights.

https://www.google.com/search?q=wom...eQ4DAkQyjcIfw&ei=fvO5WYPdCITajwPk8bBI#imgrc=_

Oh shes an advocate for human rights now is she? What of her victim and his rights? Oh that's right, he dead. Actually, she is the perfect representative for the liberal cause. Glad she was there.
 
Ostracizing women who spent time in prison and were rehabilitated like you advocate IS punishing them whether they were asked to speak or not.

I advocated for no such thing... In fact, I agree with you. I presented that as a valid example of what would constitute "punishing" the woman. I never suggested or implied that I would support any such thing actually taking place.

I think you had better read my post again:

Punishing her would be to send her back to jail, ostracize her from the community where she lives, or something of that nature... It is not punishment to not invite her to speak at an event based on her past actions.

I mean geez... Who in their right mind would want such a person representing their cause, especially one in support of women's rights.

By your logic no one including those who are rehabilited should ever be let out of prison let alone invited to speak in public.

False on both accounts. I never said or implied that she shouldn't have been released from prison, or that she shouldn't be allowed to speak at an event. In fact, my issue isn't with her at all. I simply question the morality and credibility of an organization that would embrace someone who's committed such violent and heinous acts, and allow them to give a speech to their members and followers. What does that say about the organization and it's supporters?

This kind of thing from leftist organisations is nothing new or surprising. Over the years, the left have honored and embraced many despicable people including violent revolutionaries like Che Guevara, domestic terrorists like Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn, as well as violent murderers. Just 2 months ago, both the Women's March and Black Lives Matter wished a happy birthday to Joanne Chesimard (aka Assata Shakur), a woman on the FBI's most wanted list who was sentenced to live in prison for murdering a police officer execution style in New Jersey, escaped prison in 1979 and then fled to Cuba.

Here's an article from the NY times about the views of, and people embraced, by the organizers the Women's March.
.
 
Last edited:
Actually, it was a worldwide protest to advocate legislation and policies regarding human rights and other issues, including women's rights, immigration reform, healthcare reform, reproductive rights, the natural environment, LGBTQ rights, racial equality, freedom of religion, and workers' rights.

https://www.google.com/search?q=wom...eQ4DAkQyjcIfw&ei=fvO5WYPdCITajwPk8bBI#imgrc=_

Nope. It was a pro-abortion rally. The rest is all spin. Even pro-abortion groups snubbed people who wanted to go there just for women's rights issues that didn't involve pro-abortion rights. They were persona non grata.
 
Oh shes an advocate for human rights now is she? What of her victim and his rights? Oh that's right, he dead. Actually, she is the perfect representative for the liberal cause. Glad she was there.

So what you're saying is that even after serving their sentence and showing remorse that no one can ever be rehabilited or should ever be let out of prison? Is that right? And you think she's inhumane?
 
Nope. It was a pro-abortion rally. The rest is all spin. Even pro-abortion groups snubbed people who wanted to go there just for women's rights issues that didn't involve pro-abortion rights. They were persona non grata.

Just from looking at the photos of the march I'd have to say that you're wrong. It was a global pro-woman, pro-human rights march.

Donna Hylton wasn't just there for women's rights and the only ones that seem to be snubbing her and trying to put a spin on it is you and your ilk.

Oh and btw, there were millions more people attending the Women's March than there were at Trump's inaugeration...and thats a fact.
 
Just from looking at the photos of the march I'd have to say that you're wrong. It was a global pro-woman, pro-human rights march.

Donna Hylton wasn't just there for women's rights and the only ones that seem to be snubbing her and trying to put a spin on it is you and your ilk.

Oh and btw, there were millions more people attending the Women's March than there were at Trump's inaugeration...and thats a fact.

The fact is some women's rights groups wanted to take part in the march but since they weren't pro-abortion they were told that they were not welcome. The fact is that 65 million people voted for Hillary and they were so incredibly incensed and rabid over their loss, it's not surprising at all that one million of them showed up to show off their rabidness. It was actually a very pleasurable sight to see. They are nothing but a bunch of spoiled brat crybabies throwing a temper tantrum because they didn't get what they wanted.
 
The fact is some women's rights groups wanted to take part in the march but since they weren't pro-abortion they were told that they were not welcome. The fact is that 65 million people voted for Hillary and they were so incredibly incensed and rabid over their loss, it's not surprising at all that one million of them showed up to show off their rabidness. It was actually a very pleasurable sight to see. They are nothing but a bunch of spoiled brat crybabies throwing a temper tantrum because they didn't get what they wanted.

What groups would were told they weren't welcome and by whom.....link?


They sure didn't look crybabies to me...

gloria_steinem_womens_march_dc_-_h_-_2017.jpg





.
 
Last edited:
Two problems here. First inviting this person to speak, unless there is something in her history that somehow qualified her. As Trump might put it, there was no extreme vetting. Second having 45 speakers at any event.

But a- are what are we to conclude about all this? That the issues discussed that day have no merit because she spoke? That leftists are all secret Charlie Mansons? b- Let me jump with both feet into "what about-ism": Our president said he would do things far worse than water boarding as part of his administration; he also said we had to kill the families of terrorists. Admittedly, he was speaking theoretically while she put his theories into practice, but still, they would make a great couple.
 
So what you're saying is that even after serving their sentence and showing remorse that no one can ever be rehabilited or should ever be let out of prison? Is that right? And you think she's inhumane?

Did I say any of that? Why cant you engage in honest discussion?
 
Nobody said you have to denounce anyone, but that was the question posed to you.

It's really simple... You either denounce her, or you don't denounce her. Refusing to do either, which you have every right to do, is pretty chicken **** as far as I'm concerned.




If you mean a website, I have no problem with anyone voicing their views on a website, as long as they are not breaking any laws, or directly inciting people to break laws and commit acts of violence.

If you are talking about the "platform" given to her by organizers of that event, then I ask you once again, to please tell me what groups or organizations have provided a platform for Nazis, by inviting any of them to speak at one of their events?

.
I don't have an issue with that woman being asked to speak, but it sure reflects poorly on both the group and their liberal supporters for not taking issue with it.


.

It was dumb to have her speak.

But she has as much right to do so as the alt-right. People on your side were all very concerned about Nazi free speech when Daily Stormer got shut down. Yet with her, you think she should not have that right. Why is that?
 
It was dumb to have her speak.

That wasn't a direct answer, but it was good enough for me.

But she has as much right to do so as the alt-right.

I have never said or implied otherwise.

People on your side were all very concerned about Nazi free speech when Daily Stormer got shut down.

I assume that Daily Stormer is a website... If that's the case, then the only objection I would have to them being shut down, is if a) it was done by the government and b) they had broken the law or the website was directly calling/advocating for the use of violence.

If a privately owned web-host for any reason, chose to no longer host the website, that is their choice to make. Just as a website is free to express any views or opinions they choose to, a web-host is free to choose whom they will and will not offer their services to.


Yet with her, you think she should not have that right. Why is that?

Again, she has the right to publicly speak anywhere it's legally allowed to do so. My issue isn't with her speaking, it's the fact that that organisation invited her to do so.


.
 
Back
Top Bottom