Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Unlock unbeatable offers today. Shop here: https://amzn.to/4cEkqYs 🎁
You didn't answer my question.
Are you now denying that you disagreed with Sharpton's assertion?
I did answer your question, you are just so stupid you don't understand that, by taking the position that rights are not subject to regulation, my position is that rights are not subject to regulation. Unless you can force me to declare that they are, there is no need for me to say anything.
Which, by the way, applies to you also. Nice to know you support regulating abortion, and that you won't complain the next time someone proposes a fetal person hood amendment. I am sure your parents would be proud of you, if they hadn't aborted all their children.
And that position is wrong.
Speech and assembly are regulated all the time.
Sharpton's no idiot.
And he's come a long way since Tawana Brawley..
No he hasn't. He's still a race-baiting moron.
Well no.
Advocating for people isn't "race baiting".
You folks think that people who's rights are violated with impunity should just be complacent.
And that really gets you no where.
Sharpton shouldn't have the right to spew, see how he would like that?
Lets not forget Tawana Brawley, Rev. al
who listens to this idiot?
sheesh
so, your answer is to strip him of the first to prove a point?
You so smart.....moron
Well no.
Advocating for people isn't "race baiting".
You folks think that people who's rights are violated with impunity should just be complacent.
And that really gets you no where.
Al is pretty selective on what he backs.....if there is nothing in it for him he stays away.....yesterday on the local news here about the Mexican Gangs trying to force blacks to leave the area.....a pissed black guy was wondering why Al or Jessie is not here with this shit and another in the background said ...they are afraid the gangs will target them thats why....and the piece ended right there.....
So?
Most advocates are..why is the onus on Sharpton to be any different?
You don't have the right to unregulated rights in this country.
Who here wants to argue that you do?
Bring it on, or, accept the fact that Sharpton is absolutely correct with that statement.
I'll argue it, turd. What theory of morality gives government the right to control you? Answer: nothing credible.
No he hasn't. He's still a race-baiting moron.
Well no.
Advocating for people isn't "race baiting".
You folks think that people who's rights are violated with impunity should just be complacent.
And that really gets you no where.
That was funny.
Tell me something, who's rights got violated with impunity during the Duke Lacrosse false rape investigation? Did Sharpton speak up for those whose rights were violated, or was he instrumental in calling for those rights to be ignored in the name of race baiting justice?
Where did you do that? Did I say something after that post about restricting rights, or did I just explain how you saying something is a right doesn't make it one? If I say I have a right to free coffee from Starbucks does that mean I get free coffee, or does it just mean I am spouting nonsense?
You are talking nonsense. You are suffering from the condition where you think what you're saying makes sense, but it only makes sense to you.
It also makes sense to lawyers, and judges, which is why a ruling was handed down in People v Golb that it does not violate the First Amendment to prosecute someone for impersonating an actual person via email. Free speech is not the same as speech, just like me slapping you in the face doesn't violate due process.
Trying to defend your idiocy by pointing out how ignorant you are doesn't really help.
Try this little concept on for size, there is a difference between speech and the right of free speech. Speech is an activity, free speech is the power to speak against those who have power.
What has happened over time is that the definition of free speech has been expanded to include things that are not, normally, considered free speech. This is more a recognition that the exercise of our other rights includes the ability to speak about things that are not necessarily free speech issues. This includes things like blasphemy, and even calling other people names.
This has resulted in some complicated legal issues as the government, realizing just how much power speech gives to citizens, constantly tries to take it away from us. That does not make everything the government regulates regarding speech a free speech issue, it just makes it look that way to the uninformed among us.
Like I told you the first time, educate yourself.
You can jabber away incoherently all you want but you're not going to win this argument with such nonsense.
Freedom of speech, if unregulated, would mean freedom of all speech.
We do not have freedom of all speech in this country.
Why? Because REGULATIONS remove the freedom of speech protections from some forms of speech.
Therefore, we do not have a right to unregulated free speech. Nor do we have an unregulated right to bear arms.
It would? Can you actually cite anything, other than your delusions, to support that the right of freedom of speech means what you claim?
I did answer your question, you are just so stupid you don't understand that, by taking the position that rights are not subject to regulation, my position is that rights are not subject to regulation. Unless you can force me to declare that they are, there is no need for me to say anything.
Which, by the way, applies to you also. Nice to know you support regulating abortion, and that you won't complain the next time someone proposes a fetal person hood amendment. I am sure your parents would be proud of you, if they hadn't aborted all their children.
And that position is wrong.
Speech and assembly are regulated all the time.
Speech is not the same as free speech..
Well no.
Advocating for people isn't "race baiting".
You folks think that people who's rights are violated with impunity should just be complacent.
And that really gets you no where.
That was funny.
Tell me something, who's rights got violated with impunity during the Duke Lacrosse false rape investigation? Did Sharpton speak up for those whose rights were violated, or was he instrumental in calling for those rights to be ignored in the name of race baiting justice?
Whether Sharpton's claim is right or wrong has nothing to do with him being Sharpton.
You are talking nonsense. You are suffering from the condition where you think what you're saying makes sense, but it only makes sense to you.
It also makes sense to lawyers, and judges, which is why a ruling was handed down in People v Golb that it does not violate the First Amendment to prosecute someone for impersonating an actual person via email. Free speech is not the same as speech, just like me slapping you in the face doesn't violate due process.
You're using a comical circular argument.
You're claiming that rights can't be regulated because what is regulated isn't then a right.
Al Sharpton should just come out and say that only black people should have rights. We all know that's what he means.
Is it true that you actually consider yourself one of the more intelligent conservatives on this board?
I've heard that, but I'm puzzled as to why that never manages to manifest itself in any of your posts.
Like the one above.
It was really Mary Frances Berry, head of the Civil Rights Commission that first said that civil rights do not apply to white people. I merely lifted it from her.
Civil rights laws were not passed to protect the rights of white men and do not apply to them." -- Mary Frances Berry, Chairwoman, US Commission on Civil Rights
Urban Dictionary: White guilt
You can jabber away incoherently all you want but you're not going to win this argument with such nonsense.
Freedom of speech, if unregulated, would mean freedom of all speech.
We do not have freedom of all speech in this country.
Why? Because REGULATIONS remove the freedom of speech protections from some forms of speech.
Therefore, we do not have a right to unregulated free speech. Nor do we have an unregulated right to bear arms.
It would? Can you actually cite anything, other than your delusions, to support that the right of freedom of speech means what you claim?
What part of the fact that free speech can be limited don't you understand?
And that position is wrong.
Speech and assembly are regulated all the time.
Speech is not the same as free speech..
No, but it would be if the government could not regulate the right of free speech.
Speech is not the same as free speech..
No, but it would be if the government could not regulate the right of free speech.
I suppose you think that makes sense.
It would? Can you actually cite anything, other than your delusions, to support that the right of freedom of speech means what you claim?
What part of the fact that free speech can be limited don't you understand?
Everything, mostly because every example you have given is not about free speech. If I argued that the government can regulate the press, and then pointed out that Newsweek went out of print this year, would that make me right?
No he hasn't. He's still a race-baiting moron.
Well no.
Advocating for people isn't "race baiting".
You folks think that people who's rights are violated with impunity should just be complacent.
And that really gets you no where.
That was funny.
Tell me something, who's rights got violated with impunity during the Duke Lacrosse false rape investigation? Did Sharpton speak up for those whose rights were violated, or was he instrumental in calling for those rights to be ignored in the name of race baiting justice?
No, but it would be if the government could not regulate the right of free speech.
I suppose you think that makes sense.
The reason there is a difference between 'speech' and 'free speech', the latter being the constitutionally protected variety,
is because the free speech is what's left after you strip the protection of the 1st amendment from all other speech.
That is the regulation being talked about here.
What part of the fact that free speech can be limited don't you understand?
Everything, mostly because every example you have given is not about free speech. If I argued that the government can regulate the press, and then pointed out that Newsweek went out of print this year, would that make me right?
Incitement to riot was free speech until laws were passed against it, and those laws were upheld by the Supreme Court.
Someone who wishes to use speech to incite a riot can no longer do so without fear of being held criminally accountable, because of regulation,
thus proving that he had no right to unregulated free speech.
Well no.
Advocating for people isn't "race baiting".
You folks think that people who's rights are violated with impunity should just be complacent.
And that really gets you no where.
That was funny.
Tell me something, who's rights got violated with impunity during the Duke Lacrosse false rape investigation? Did Sharpton speak up for those whose rights were violated, or was he instrumental in calling for those rights to be ignored in the name of race baiting justice?
Who's "rights"?
You guys hold this up like some sort of banner.
Some jocks hired a couple of drugged out strippers to dance for them..and probably have sex. That's illegal by the way.
It's pretty surprising that you folks think it means anything that case got the boot.
