You talkin' to me, ewv? I must've gotten incorrect information. After all, we all know that (genderless) ewv is never wrong. On my next doctoral, I'll be sure to quote him/her using a great big asterisk. In red. All caps.

Good summary.

The logic of leftists is that words (emotionally) hurt and even kill people. They look to the past to determine this. With this excuse they seek to stop people from speaking words that they see could (emotionally) hurt or killed people. They have their morally superior excuse to prevent their targets from speaking by any means necessary. They even stop certain books from being read or published.

Imagine the world were a book was never published called, The Communist Manifesto? The leftist imagines a world where wrong words are never spoken, published, read, or thought.

I think we are in agreement. Free speech means free speech. Doesn’t mean free actions. If someone is emotionally upset by my words, it’s THEIR problem and I should not be convicted of leftist inspired micro aggressions. If I act on my nasty words, that’s a different story

100% agree, ewv! "...pandering to multiculturalism" is at the heart of all this BS. I grew up in the heart of Seneca country in Upstate NY and some studies on local history were part of the curriculum in both grammar and high schools (at least it was in the '60s) and such an important topic was never even mentioned. The hoax shows up later in the '80s and grew to urban legend status and now keeps popping up as though it were a fact. The Iroquois were a loose confederation of smaller tribes that verbally agreed to not kill each other (they had no written language), but still made brutal war on surrounding tribes, especially the Huron, even after the arrival of the white man. The current notion they danced freely in the forest making kissy face with Bambi is pure BS. They mainly fought with the French during the French and Indian war - and lost - and then mainly with the British during the Revolution - and lost again.

Playing the victim now are we. Flag me if you feel so hurt.

Your angry personal attacks do not belong here.

A strained attempt to force a "resemblance" without regard to essentials, context, and what else anywhere can also be similarly imagined as "resemblance", is not scholarship and is not all that you and Herb wrote that I rejected.

This began with Herb's preposterous and sweeping claim that "the framers based their rules of the country on an Indian tribe that had many years of peaceful prosperity" (the last of which is standard euphemism for 'noble savage' rhetoric misrepresenting the characteristic continuous tribalist wars and subjugation of individuals in primitive tribes). You began by defending it: "This influence by the Iroquois is noted by congress". You linked to a Democrat 1988 "Congressional Resolution", as if that is the standard of history, which was radical left propaganda pandering to multiculturalism and balkanization (the text of which implies a radical ethnic theory of tribal sovereignty that does not exist within this country).

You also wrote "the Constitution as originally enacted was not at all like the Great Law" and then contradicted yourself: "But in a larger sense the claim is correct. The framers of the Constitution, like most colonists in what would become the United States, were pervaded by Indian images of liberty." Indian "images" and ideals were primitive tribalism, not individual liberty, and the ideas of the framers of the Constitution and the colonists were not "pervaded" by Indians' "images".

The lack of evidence for the preposterous contradictory speculations was explained away by saying evidence would be impossible: "the Iroquois Confederacy was predominantly illiterate, meaning that a search for a written historical document would prove futile." Lack of evidence left by illiterate primitives is not evidence, and neither is the lack of evidence of the alleged fundamental influences on the literate framers and colonists. It does not become plausible by its impossibility and a romanticized "oral tradition".

You then tried to argue for taking all this seriously as "wisdom and knowledge" by obliquely referring to contradictory "debates" and "discussions" ranging from Locke to the Bible -- as if all such "debates" and "discussions" have equal validity -- and merged them all together with the claim that "The truth is the minds of many". It is not. Contradictory "minds of many" are not facts and not the standard of truth, and neither are romanticized speculations that primitives were the source for "the rules of the country". Rejecting all of it is not a "chip on a shoulder" whether or not you find the dismissal of the preposterous to be "annoying".

Give me a break. I wrote some scholars of Iroqouis argue a close resemblance to the constitution” you apparently are an expert on the
Iroqouis and dispute that. I am not an expert on them. That doesn’t mean scholars of Iroqouis don’t argue of a close resemblance.

"The 'words' hurt you when people believe and act on them and you aren't allowed to respond".

"Words" have meaning and implications in reality, which if put into practice can hurt you, which is why ideas matter. Spreading false ideas as libel or for a "sticks and stone" purpose in action while denying your right to freedom of speech to respond is a deadly combination that shouldn't be dismissed with a child's nursery rhyme.

That doesn't mean you should or should be allowed to poke someone in the eye every time he says something you don't like, and it doesn't justify the left's suppression of freedom of speech on principle against those who contradict or who do not pander to their political correctness, multiculturalism and politics. Freedom of speech is important because ideas and thinking for yourself are important. That leftists -- like most of those at Google and Facebook -- have the same right to freedom of speech doesn't mean that what they say and promote shouldn't matter to us.

Indian tribalism did not have a "very close resemblance to the Constitution". And Herb wrote originally, "the framers based their rules of the country on an Indian tribe", which is not true either.

Truth is correspondence between an assertion and the facts, not the "minds of many".

Your angry personal attacks do not belong here.

I never said it was based on Indian tribalism.
Your dismissive attitude is annoying. Why don’t you knock that chip off your shoulder.
The truth doesn’t care what you say or think. The truth is the minds of many , all who had participated in framing the constitution were individuals bringing their wisdom and knowledge together.
That included the reality around them and expiriences observed by each individual. As well as their studies.

This country was not based on Indian tribalism. The fringe can "debate" such nonsense all it wants to. Thousands of years of primitive Indian tribalism did not result in any of them becoming civilization based on the rights of the individual and this country did not copy them.

The thought police thing is indeed very scary. Suppose it was deemed dangerous if you even thought about killing someone with a gun, or watching movies where that happened- they could come for you.

Wasnt being freiendly with jews in nazi germany sufficient reason to have the SS visit you?

acting on and speaking words are two different things. calling me a nigger isnt the same as stringing me up from a tree branch.

The basis has been debated for decades. Many influences likely came together for the constitutions creation. American Creation, we have long debated the influences that motivated the Founding Fathers to draft the American Constitution. Everyone from John Locke to Rousseau, Montesquieu to the Holy Bible have been discussed at some length. And while these influences were undoubtedly important, to the formation of the Constitution, there is at least the possibility of a more local influence at play.

Recent scholarship on the history of the American Constitution has uncovered some interesting insights into the role that various Native American tribes may have had on the formation of the Constitution. James Mann, one of the leading writers on this topic, has stated the following with regards to this provocative Constitution/Native American connection:
So vivid were these examples of democratic self-government [from colonial Indian history] that some historians and activists have argued that the [Indians'] Great Law of Peace directly inspired the American Constitution. Taken literally, this assertion seems implausible. With its grant of authority to the federal government to supersede state law, its dependence on rule by the majority rather than consensus and its denial of suffrage to women, the Constitution as originally enacted was not at all like the Great Law. But in a larger sense the claim is correct. The framers of the Constitution, like most colonists in what would become the United States, were pervaded by Indian images of liberty.
Skeptics of course point out that the overwhelming majority of written material from the Founders present at the Constitutional Convention contains nothing of their debates regarding the Iroquois Indians. In addition, there are no records or written documents from the Iroquois Confederacy that could substantiate any claim as to their similarities with the government established in the Constitution. With that said, keep in mind two things: first the surviving written record of the Constitutional Convention is relatively small -- most of which is found in the writings of James Madison. The delegates agreed to keep it as such in order to protect the "legacies" of the various participants. Second, the Iroquois Confederacy was predominantly illiterate, meaning that a search for a written historical document would prove futile. However, if oral history is taken into account, some scholars of the Iroquois argue that the confederation they established has a very close resemblance to the Constitution.

The founding of this country was based on individualism in accordance with the Enlightenment, not primitive tribalism. The hoax claiming it was based on the Indians is no better than the fantasies spread by "birthers", "truthers" and those who claim the moon landing was fake and that the Constitution was based on the Ten Commandments. Another bizarre House resolution, that one in 1988 under Democrat control of both the House and the Senate, pandering to multiculturalism is not evidence to the contrary.

This influence by the Iroquois is noted by congress.
https://www.senate.gov/reference/reso...

The "words" hurt you when people believe and act on them and you aren't allowed to respond.

I dunno. Not about Judge Jeannie, but look what they are trying in NY. So far, just state and local but that's how most things start...

https://pix11.com/2018/11/02/proposed...

Mr. Trump needs to invoke rules like we had when I was on the City Council of my town. A member could speak for 5 minutes on any subject but then had to relinquish the floor and let every other member speak. Then if time permitted it went around again. Or he could ignore Acosta and let him wave his hand until it goes numb. The other news people should tell Acosta to shut up and let them ask a question. Of course most of them find him amusing so that probably wouldn't happen. Trump should ignore him!

Depends on who owns the site. I suppose the owner of a newspaper can decide who is allowed to have his letters-to-the-editor published. But it depends on whether the government gets involved, whether it violates the First Amendment.

The Constitution was based on principles of government and a philosophy of reason and individualism from the Enlightenment, not Indian tribes or any other tribalism or collectivism.

Objectivism does not mean ignoring the real world, quite the contrary.

Whether or not it is proper to "stand on principle" depends on what the principle is and how it is being applied. Correct principles should always be followed.

There is no (proper) principle that says not to vote or to always vote, but if you can't support any of the candidates then it is proper to not vote. If you don't support any of the candidates but it makes a difference who wins then it is proper to vote to stop the worst. That is not a violation of principle because principles are to be applied in context for living, not following duties.

Thanks for the link.

I bet the WHCA is studded with Obama appointees with predictable outcome.

Even though there is a seating arrangement according to ratings (CNN is at the bottom so why is it in the front row?) the "rules" say nothing about being called on.

I'd love to see the self-congratulatory smirk disappear from the face of this bully when he is being shunned.

Employee-Employer disputes are rarely the purview of the State. If you are in a union State, your contractual work agreements usually cover some portion of your "job" being some form of non-work-related speech activities such as union organizing, picketing, etc. for which you can not be fired. If you are in a non-union State (an at-will employment State), the company can pretty much hire you or fire you at will. Your only recourse there is to prove that they violated their own corporate policies in dismissing you. The other thing you can argue is that because you are not a spokesperson or agent of the company what you do on your own time is your own business and protected by the First Amendment. This one is generally hard to argue either way and depends a lot on the local case law.

Usually you have reasonably like minded people here but some have the objectivist religious fervor and cant temper that with the realization that we are operating in the real world and that if you do something to "stand on Principal" like not voting....you are then part of the problem.