Democrat .. No Free Speech Zones

[jon_berzerk]

yeah plug your ears and go lalalalalalalalala real loud ya dope

You're attacking me, then when I point out you're attacking me, your response is to act like a child.

Is this who you imagined you'd be when you were a child? Seriously?

Look dude, I'll make it plain and simple. Either you debate properly or I'll stick you on ignore. I don't care either way, you tell me how it's going to be here and then I'll act accordingly.

i dont give a rats ass if you stick me on ignore


i am quite sure you do not want to come to the fact that the leftists are a bunch of anti freedom fascists

with the behavior they are demonstrating

Why are you "quite sure"? Because you think you know me? You don't know me other than what you decide I have said rather than what I do say.

There are those on the left and the right who wish to restrict people's freedom of speech. That doesn't mean "the leftists" are against free speech, it means some are, the same as on the right.

I certainly am not part of any gang. I don't back people up who I think are wrong, no matter how much YOU think I'm a part of some group or other.

thought you are putting me on ignore asswipe

I have a feeling it's only if he gets the last word...

that certainly could be the case

--LOL

 

[Lumpy 1]

You're attacking me, then when I point out you're attacking me, your response is to act like a child.

Is this who you imagined you'd be when you were a child? Seriously?

Look dude, I'll make it plain and simple. Either you debate properly or I'll stick you on ignore. I don't care either way, you tell me how it's going to be here and then I'll act accordingly.

i dont give a rats ass if you stick me on ignore


i am quite sure you do not want to come to the fact that the leftists are a bunch of anti freedom fascists

with the behavior they are demonstrating

Why are you "quite sure"? Because you think you know me? You don't know me other than what you decide I have said rather than what I do say.

There are those on the left and the right who wish to restrict people's freedom of speech. That doesn't mean "the leftists" are against free speech, it means some are, the same as on the right.

I certainly am not part of any gang. I don't back people up who I think are wrong, no matter how much YOU think I'm a part of some group or other.

thought you are putting me on ignore asswipe

I have a feeling it's only if he gets the last word...

that certainly could be the case

--LOL

Eh, some like to grab their balls and run away..

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Sheesh, that was weak, would you like to try again?

Nope. I'll stand by it regardless of whether you think it's weak or not. Would you like to respond to my comments or just make silly ass statements that don't do anything but avoid the topic WHICH YOU STARTED?

A candidate should be allowed to hold their own peaceful rally in the building and forum of their choosing, without having a group of disruptive demonstrators feeling the need to make a scene in order to silence the opposition. Those who support it likewise don't find anything wrong with a Congressman yelling "You lie!" In the middle of a Presidential address. It is, after all, also considered free speech according to the Constitution. Right?

A candidate should be able to speak. However Trump make the decision not to speak there.

If people wish to protest, why shouldn't they be allowed to protest? Violent protesting is a different matter, and I think you'll find most people don't agree with that.

However, at no point was Trump being prevented from saying what he wanted to say. He said what he wanted to say. So... how can anyone complain his freedom of speech has been curtailed?

If a group wanted to protest the views of a candidate, they can do so peacefully outside the event. What reason could demonstrators possibly have or gain by planning to infiltrate a crowd of a political opponent, except to entice a confrontation with those supporters and disrupt, or otherwise shut down the candidate's political rally. is it any surprise that liberals don't like being confronted with an opposing view, otherwise they'd have more of a respect for an opposing point of view. Just look at the example they have in the White House, the apple really doesn't fall far from the tree, all while none of the democrat candidates are vocally opposing that any of their supporters place themselves in a position of confrontation at any Trump rally.

Okay, they should protest peacefully. But they know they'll get more attention, more publicity, if they protest violently.

Trump does stuff to attract attention, and people lord him for it. But then others do it and people hate them.

However that still doesn't mean that they're taking away Trump's freedom of speech.

Well none of the democrat candidates are speaking against protestors placing themselves in a position of confrontation. It would be no surprise if the protestors are being encouraged by democrats to try and go after Trump's surge in popularity. If they can't go after him on the issues, which is obvious the Democrats don't wish to go head to head with him on solving the problems we face - like the flow of illegal immigration coming in this country, for example. So instead they attack the man by creating a scene that draws media attention on Trump himself, where those talked about "issues" that are the focus of his popularity take a back seat to demonstrations. If I was a democrat that wanted to try to cut my opponent's popularity down to size, that's what I'd do. Again, why is it so convenient to find not a single vocal message by any candidate or even from Obama himself, to keep demonstrators from placing themselves in a position of creating confrontation among Trump supporters. Unless such confrontation is really supported and encouraged by Democrats. After all, silence speaks a lot of the party.

 

[kaz]

So you support a group that doesn't exist and use that as a canard to support a group that does exist that you say you don't support ...

I support protesters that don't resort to violence. There are plenty of those.

What there don't seem to be are reasonable Trump supporters.

Anti Trump Protester Punched and Kicked in Tuscon

Strawman. I said there are no non violent Trump demonstrators, I didn't say there are no non-violent demonstrators in general. Your reading skills are awful

There are plenty of non violent Trump protesters as well. If you weren't such a partisan hack you'd know that.

LMAO, partisan, another word you don't know the meaning of. Don't you want better for the next generation than the government schools that gave you a diploma without an education?

Sure I do...I looked it up. Described you to a "T". You look at the Democrats and see a forest. You look at Republicans and see the individual trees. That's the epitome of a partisan.

There has only been one case of anti Trump demonstrators "throwing the first punch", but anti Trump protesters getting beat up at Trump rallies has just become part of his show.

With Democrats, all the trees are identical, you haven't been able to provide any disagreement between them at all yourself.

And again, you aren't that bright. Sure, I hate Democrats more, it's in my sig. Hating one side less than you hate the other side still isn't the definition of "partisan," Bubba. I hate Democrats less than I hate Nazis, doesn't make me a Democrat no matter how you slice it.

And I argue with Republicans on the site all the time. You never argue with Democrats ever. Yeah, that's that same

You people really are not smart

 

[Papageorgio]

Nope .. A different Point of View ... it's just not Allowed.

Where else will Trump not be allowed to speak in America without the liberal pc nazi's threatening violence and hate?

Free speech is not the ability to talk where you like when you like.

So, if you and your other half are doing it in the bedroom and you stop me reading from Shakespeare, is this preventing free speech? NO.

Trump isn't being prevented from saying what he wants at all. He choose to cancel his speech but he still made it somewhere else.

So, stop talking nonsense.

You read Shakespeare will watching a couple do it?

You are a weirdo!

 

[frigidweirdo]

Nope. I'll stand by it regardless of whether you think it's weak or not. Would you like to respond to my comments or just make silly ass statements that don't do anything but avoid the topic WHICH YOU STARTED?

A candidate should be allowed to hold their own peaceful rally in the building and forum of their choosing, without having a group of disruptive demonstrators feeling the need to make a scene in order to silence the opposition. Those who support it likewise don't find anything wrong with a Congressman yelling "You lie!" In the middle of a Presidential address. It is, after all, also considered free speech according to the Constitution. Right?

A candidate should be able to speak. However Trump make the decision not to speak there.

If people wish to protest, why shouldn't they be allowed to protest? Violent protesting is a different matter, and I think you'll find most people don't agree with that.

However, at no point was Trump being prevented from saying what he wanted to say. He said what he wanted to say. So... how can anyone complain his freedom of speech has been curtailed?

If a group wanted to protest the views of a candidate, they can do so peacefully outside the event. What reason could demonstrators possibly have or gain by planning to infiltrate a crowd of a political opponent, except to entice a confrontation with those supporters and disrupt, or otherwise shut down the candidate's political rally. is it any surprise that liberals don't like being confronted with an opposing view, otherwise they'd have more of a respect for an opposing point of view. Just look at the example they have in the White House, the apple really doesn't fall far from the tree, all while none of the democrat candidates are vocally opposing that any of their supporters place themselves in a position of confrontation at any Trump rally.

Okay, they should protest peacefully. But they know they'll get more attention, more publicity, if they protest violently.

Trump does stuff to attract attention, and people lord him for it. But then others do it and people hate them.

However that still doesn't mean that they're taking away Trump's freedom of speech.

Well none of the democrat candidates are speaking against protestors placing themselves in a position of confrontation. It would be no surprise if the protestors are being encouraged by democrats to try and go after Trump's surge in popularity. If they can't go after him on the issues, which is obvious the Democrats don't wish to go head to head with him on solving the problems we face - like the flow of illegal immigration coming in this country, for example. So instead they attack the man by creating a scene that draws media attention on Trump himself, where those talked about "issues" that are the focus of his popularity take a back seat to demonstrations. If I was a democrat that wanted to try to cut my opponent's popularity down to size, that's what I'd do. Again, why is it so convenient to find not a single vocal message by any candidate or even from Obama himself, to keep demonstrators from placing themselves in a position of creating confrontation among Trump supporters. Unless such confrontation is really supported and encouraged by Democrats. After all, silence speaks a lot of the party.

Is this the same as Muslims not speaking out against the Paris attackers? Oh, wait, they did speak out, only the right had their dicks in their ears at the time.

 

[Papageorgio]

A candidate should be allowed to hold their own peaceful rally in the building and forum of their choosing, without having a group of disruptive demonstrators feeling the need to make a scene in order to silence the opposition. Those who support it likewise don't find anything wrong with a Congressman yelling "You lie!" In the middle of a Presidential address. It is, after all, also considered free speech according to the Constitution. Right?

A candidate should be able to speak. However Trump make the decision not to speak there.

If people wish to protest, why shouldn't they be allowed to protest? Violent protesting is a different matter, and I think you'll find most people don't agree with that.

However, at no point was Trump being prevented from saying what he wanted to say. He said what he wanted to say. So... how can anyone complain his freedom of speech has been curtailed?

If a group wanted to protest the views of a candidate, they can do so peacefully outside the event. What reason could demonstrators possibly have or gain by planning to infiltrate a crowd of a political opponent, except to entice a confrontation with those supporters and disrupt, or otherwise shut down the candidate's political rally. is it any surprise that liberals don't like being confronted with an opposing view, otherwise they'd have more of a respect for an opposing point of view. Just look at the example they have in the White House, the apple really doesn't fall far from the tree, all while none of the democrat candidates are vocally opposing that any of their supporters place themselves in a position of confrontation at any Trump rally.

Okay, they should protest peacefully. But they know they'll get more attention, more publicity, if they protest violently.

Trump does stuff to attract attention, and people lord him for it. But then others do it and people hate them.

However that still doesn't mean that they're taking away Trump's freedom of speech.

Well none of the democrat candidates are speaking against protestors placing themselves in a position of confrontation. It would be no surprise if the protestors are being encouraged by democrats to try and go after Trump's surge in popularity. If they can't go after him on the issues, which is obvious the Democrats don't wish to go head to head with him on solving the problems we face - like the flow of illegal immigration coming in this country, for example. So instead they attack the man by creating a scene that draws media attention on Trump himself, where those talked about "issues" that are the focus of his popularity take a back seat to demonstrations. If I was a democrat that wanted to try to cut my opponent's popularity down to size, that's what I'd do. Again, why is it so convenient to find not a single vocal message by any candidate or even from Obama himself, to keep demonstrators from placing themselves in a position of creating confrontation among Trump supporters. Unless such confrontation is really supported and encouraged by Democrats. After all, silence speaks a lot of the party.

Is this the same as Muslims not speaking out against the Paris attackers? Oh, wait, they did speak out, only the right had their dicks in their ears at the time.

Not sure what your obsession with sex is, but it is frickin, weird, weirdo. Doh!

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

A candidate should be allowed to hold their own peaceful rally in the building and forum of their choosing, without having a group of disruptive demonstrators feeling the need to make a scene in order to silence the opposition. Those who support it likewise don't find anything wrong with a Congressman yelling "You lie!" In the middle of a Presidential address. It is, after all, also considered free speech according to the Constitution. Right?

A candidate should be able to speak. However Trump make the decision not to speak there.

If people wish to protest, why shouldn't they be allowed to protest? Violent protesting is a different matter, and I think you'll find most people don't agree with that.

However, at no point was Trump being prevented from saying what he wanted to say. He said what he wanted to say. So... how can anyone complain his freedom of speech has been curtailed?

If a group wanted to protest the views of a candidate, they can do so peacefully outside the event. What reason could demonstrators possibly have or gain by planning to infiltrate a crowd of a political opponent, except to entice a confrontation with those supporters and disrupt, or otherwise shut down the candidate's political rally. is it any surprise that liberals don't like being confronted with an opposing view, otherwise they'd have more of a respect for an opposing point of view. Just look at the example they have in the White House, the apple really doesn't fall far from the tree, all while none of the democrat candidates are vocally opposing that any of their supporters place themselves in a position of confrontation at any Trump rally.

Okay, they should protest peacefully. But they know they'll get more attention, more publicity, if they protest violently.

Trump does stuff to attract attention, and people lord him for it. But then others do it and people hate them.

However that still doesn't mean that they're taking away Trump's freedom of speech.

Well none of the democrat candidates are speaking against protestors placing themselves in a position of confrontation. It would be no surprise if the protestors are being encouraged by democrats to try and go after Trump's surge in popularity. If they can't go after him on the issues, which is obvious the Democrats don't wish to go head to head with him on solving the problems we face - like the flow of illegal immigration coming in this country, for example. So instead they attack the man by creating a scene that draws media attention on Trump himself, where those talked about "issues" that are the focus of his popularity take a back seat to demonstrations. If I was a democrat that wanted to try to cut my opponent's popularity down to size, that's what I'd do. Again, why is it so convenient to find not a single vocal message by any candidate or even from Obama himself, to keep demonstrators from placing themselves in a position of creating confrontation among Trump supporters. Unless such confrontation is really supported and encouraged by Democrats. After all, silence speaks a lot of the party.

Is this the same as Muslims not speaking out against the Paris attackers? Oh, wait, they did speak out, only the right had their dicks in their ears at the time.

Then you should have no problem at all providing a link supported comment by Hillary, Saunders, or Obama publicly speaking out against protestors placing themselves in confrontational situations with Trump supporters at a rally, should you? See how easy that works? Just don't get upset at me because you're unable to, but would much rather talk about Paris. Then we wonder why, democrats are unable to debate one on one with the current issue and topic at hand. No surprise there.

 

[Seawytch]

I support protesters that don't resort to violence. There are plenty of those.

What there don't seem to be are reasonable Trump supporters.

Anti Trump Protester Punched and Kicked in Tuscon

Strawman. I said there are no non violent Trump demonstrators, I didn't say there are no non-violent demonstrators in general. Your reading skills are awful

There are plenty of non violent Trump protesters as well. If you weren't such a partisan hack you'd know that.

LMAO, partisan, another word you don't know the meaning of. Don't you want better for the next generation than the government schools that gave you a diploma without an education?

Sure I do...I looked it up. Described you to a "T". You look at the Democrats and see a forest. You look at Republicans and see the individual trees. That's the epitome of a partisan.

There has only been one case of anti Trump demonstrators "throwing the first punch", but anti Trump protesters getting beat up at Trump rallies has just become part of his show.

With Democrats, all the trees are identical, you haven't been able to provide any disagreement between them at all yourself.

And again, you aren't that bright. Sure, I hate Democrats more, it's in my sig. Hating one side less than you hate the other side still isn't the definition of "partisan," Bubba. I hate Democrats less than I hate Nazis, doesn't make me a Democrat no matter how you slice it.

And I argue with Republicans on the site all the time. You never argue with Democrats ever. Yeah, that's that same

You people really are not smart

How cute...trying to defend your hackiness. Just makes you look like even MORE of a hack.

 

[frigidweirdo]

A candidate should be able to speak. However Trump make the decision not to speak there.

If people wish to protest, why shouldn't they be allowed to protest? Violent protesting is a different matter, and I think you'll find most people don't agree with that.

However, at no point was Trump being prevented from saying what he wanted to say. He said what he wanted to say. So... how can anyone complain his freedom of speech has been curtailed?

If a group wanted to protest the views of a candidate, they can do so peacefully outside the event. What reason could demonstrators possibly have or gain by planning to infiltrate a crowd of a political opponent, except to entice a confrontation with those supporters and disrupt, or otherwise shut down the candidate's political rally. is it any surprise that liberals don't like being confronted with an opposing view, otherwise they'd have more of a respect for an opposing point of view. Just look at the example they have in the White House, the apple really doesn't fall far from the tree, all while none of the democrat candidates are vocally opposing that any of their supporters place themselves in a position of confrontation at any Trump rally.

Okay, they should protest peacefully. But they know they'll get more attention, more publicity, if they protest violently.

Trump does stuff to attract attention, and people lord him for it. But then others do it and people hate them.

However that still doesn't mean that they're taking away Trump's freedom of speech.

Well none of the democrat candidates are speaking against protestors placing themselves in a position of confrontation. It would be no surprise if the protestors are being encouraged by democrats to try and go after Trump's surge in popularity. If they can't go after him on the issues, which is obvious the Democrats don't wish to go head to head with him on solving the problems we face - like the flow of illegal immigration coming in this country, for example. So instead they attack the man by creating a scene that draws media attention on Trump himself, where those talked about "issues" that are the focus of his popularity take a back seat to demonstrations. If I was a democrat that wanted to try to cut my opponent's popularity down to size, that's what I'd do. Again, why is it so convenient to find not a single vocal message by any candidate or even from Obama himself, to keep demonstrators from placing themselves in a position of creating confrontation among Trump supporters. Unless such confrontation is really supported and encouraged by Democrats. After all, silence speaks a lot of the party.

Is this the same as Muslims not speaking out against the Paris attackers? Oh, wait, they did speak out, only the right had their dicks in their ears at the time.

Then you should have no problem at all providing a link supported comment by Hillary, Saunders, or Obama publicly speaking out against protestors placing themselves in confrontational situations with Trump supporters at a rally, should you? See how easy that works? Just don't get upset at me because you're unable to, but would much rather talk about Paris. Then we wonder why, democrats are unable to debate one on one with the current issue and topic at hand. No surprise there.

No, I don't see how easy it works.

When it came to the Paris attacks I posted them up here and people still continued to say Muslims didn't say this, they still continued to demonize all Muslims.

Also, I'd doubt that these people would come out publicly, because then the press and others would make some kind of suggestion that they're supporting Trump. This is politics where people will take anything and make it fit their agenda.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

If a group wanted to protest the views of a candidate, they can do so peacefully outside the event. What reason could demonstrators possibly have or gain by planning to infiltrate a crowd of a political opponent, except to entice a confrontation with those supporters and disrupt, or otherwise shut down the candidate's political rally. is it any surprise that liberals don't like being confronted with an opposing view, otherwise they'd have more of a respect for an opposing point of view. Just look at the example they have in the White House, the apple really doesn't fall far from the tree, all while none of the democrat candidates are vocally opposing that any of their supporters place themselves in a position of confrontation at any Trump rally.

Okay, they should protest peacefully. But they know they'll get more attention, more publicity, if they protest violently.

Trump does stuff to attract attention, and people lord him for it. But then others do it and people hate them.

However that still doesn't mean that they're taking away Trump's freedom of speech.

Well none of the democrat candidates are speaking against protestors placing themselves in a position of confrontation. It would be no surprise if the protestors are being encouraged by democrats to try and go after Trump's surge in popularity. If they can't go after him on the issues, which is obvious the Democrats don't wish to go head to head with him on solving the problems we face - like the flow of illegal immigration coming in this country, for example. So instead they attack the man by creating a scene that draws media attention on Trump himself, where those talked about "issues" that are the focus of his popularity take a back seat to demonstrations. If I was a democrat that wanted to try to cut my opponent's popularity down to size, that's what I'd do. Again, why is it so convenient to find not a single vocal message by any candidate or even from Obama himself, to keep demonstrators from placing themselves in a position of creating confrontation among Trump supporters. Unless such confrontation is really supported and encouraged by Democrats. After all, silence speaks a lot of the party.

Is this the same as Muslims not speaking out against the Paris attackers? Oh, wait, they did speak out, only the right had their dicks in their ears at the time.

Then you should have no problem at all providing a link supported comment by Hillary, Saunders, or Obama publicly speaking out against protestors placing themselves in confrontational situations with Trump supporters at a rally, should you? See how easy that works? Just don't get upset at me because you're unable to, but would much rather talk about Paris. Then we wonder why, democrats are unable to debate one on one with the current issue and topic at hand. No surprise there.

No, I don't see how easy it works.

When it came to the Paris attacks I posted them up here and people still continued to say Muslims didn't say this, they still continued to demonize all Muslims.

Also, I'd doubt that these people would come out publicly, because then the press and others would make some kind of suggestion that they're supporting Trump. This is politics where people will take anything and make it fit their agenda.

Did I say all Musliums or did I focus on "unchecked" refugees? See the big difference there? Now if France had strong enough intelligence to believe the terrorists exploited the refugee situation as a way to infiltrate terrorists into Paris, then they had every right to close their borders. If you want to have open unchecked borders as a means for terrorists to sneak in, why even bother putting all our resources with airport security?

Now of course these candidates can come out publicly to their supporters not to put themselves in compromising situations that would place them fighting against Trump supporters. I mean these cowards have plenty to say about Trump's behavior, as well as you don't see a group of republican protestors acting in the same fashion when a democrat speaks at one of their rallies. It takes two sides coming together to cause a confrontation. You can't give the responsibility to one, and question his leadership ability if the democrat candidates also in likewise demonstration of their leadership ability can't control theirs.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Okay, they should protest peacefully. But they know they'll get more attention, more publicity, if they protest violently.

Trump does stuff to attract attention, and people lord him for it. But then others do it and people hate them.

However that still doesn't mean that they're taking away Trump's freedom of speech.

Well none of the democrat candidates are speaking against protestors placing themselves in a position of confrontation. It would be no surprise if the protestors are being encouraged by democrats to try and go after Trump's surge in popularity. If they can't go after him on the issues, which is obvious the Democrats don't wish to go head to head with him on solving the problems we face - like the flow of illegal immigration coming in this country, for example. So instead they attack the man by creating a scene that draws media attention on Trump himself, where those talked about "issues" that are the focus of his popularity take a back seat to demonstrations. If I was a democrat that wanted to try to cut my opponent's popularity down to size, that's what I'd do. Again, why is it so convenient to find not a single vocal message by any candidate or even from Obama himself, to keep demonstrators from placing themselves in a position of creating confrontation among Trump supporters. Unless such confrontation is really supported and encouraged by Democrats. After all, silence speaks a lot of the party.

Is this the same as Muslims not speaking out against the Paris attackers? Oh, wait, they did speak out, only the right had their dicks in their ears at the time.

Then you should have no problem at all providing a link supported comment by Hillary, Saunders, or Obama publicly speaking out against protestors placing themselves in confrontational situations with Trump supporters at a rally, should you? See how easy that works? Just don't get upset at me because you're unable to, but would much rather talk about Paris. Then we wonder why, democrats are unable to debate one on one with the current issue and topic at hand. No surprise there.

No, I don't see how easy it works.

When it came to the Paris attacks I posted them up here and people still continued to say Muslims didn't say this, they still continued to demonize all Muslims.

Also, I'd doubt that these people would come out publicly, because then the press and others would make some kind of suggestion that they're supporting Trump. This is politics where people will take anything and make it fit their agenda.

Did I say all Musliums or did I focus on "unchecked" refugees? See the big difference there? Now if France had strong enough intelligence to believe the terrorists exploited the refugee situation as a way to infiltrate terrorists into Paris, then they had every right to close their borders. If you want to have open unchecked borders as a means for terrorists to sneak in, why even bother putting all our resources with airport security?

Now of course these candidates can come out publicly to their supporters not to put themselves in compromising situations that would place them fighting against Trump supporters. I mean these cowards have plenty to say about Trump's behavior, as well as you don't see a group of republican protestors acting in the same fashion when a democrat speaks at one of their rallies. It takes two sides coming together to cause a confrontation. You can't give the responsibility to one, and question his leadership ability if the democrat candidates also in likewise demonstration of their leadership ability can't control theirs.

It doesn't matter what you said, I may not even be talking about you.

France has a problem, like many western countries, in that racists will take certain topics on board and beat them to a pulp, and then everyone else is afraid of dealing with them in a sensible manner.

It's about having the right mentality, and a lot of politicians simply don't have the right mentality. (either far right or not).

Trump came out and said there should be a wall. What's the point. People will get around the wall. It's not a viable solution to the problem. If you want to stop people, then you need to work with Mexico, offer incentives, try and build Mexico up so people don't want to leave the country. But also it takes man power to deal with borders, whether you like it or not. Technology can help too.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

No Free Speech Zone
No Feeedom to Assemble Zone
No Freedom To Drive Down the Highway Zone
No Freedom to Disagree With Democrats Zone
No Tolerance Zone
Black Lives ONLY Matter Zone
No Enforcing Laws Zone
No Democrat Accountability Zone
No FOIA Request Zone...

The ignorance of conservatives is exceeded only by their propensity to lie – the post quoted above being one of many examples.

 

[Lumpy 1]

No Free Speech Zone
No Feeedom to Assemble Zone
No Freedom To Drive Down the Highway Zone
No Freedom to Disagree With Democrats Zone
No Tolerance Zone
Black Lives ONLY Matter Zone
No Enforcing Laws Zone
No Democrat Accountability Zone
No FOIA Request Zone...

The ignorance of conservatives is exceeded only by their propensity to lie – the post quoted above being one of many examples.

Sheesh, you're a perfect example of your average low information Denialocrat...

 

[easyt65]

Chain yourself to a car to prevent someone from going to a Trump rally lately?

Try to shout down and silence an oppising view lately?

Incite violence against an oppising candidate?

Libs gave been extremely busy lately engaging in their fascist tactics while demonstrating the 'tolerance' of ISIS...

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Free speech is not the ability to talk where you like when you like.

So, if you and your other half are doing it in the bedroom and you stop me reading from Shakespeare, is this preventing free speech? NO.

Trump isn't being prevented from saying what he wants at all. He choose to cancel his speech but he still made it somewhere else.

So, stop talking nonsense.

Sheesh, that was weak, would you like to try again?

Nope. I'll stand by it regardless of whether you think it's weak or not. Would you like to respond to my comments or just make silly ass statements that don't do anything but avoid the topic WHICH YOU STARTED?

A candidate should be allowed to hold their own peaceful rally in the building and forum of their choosing, without having a group of disruptive demonstrators feeling the need to make a scene in order to silence the opposition. Those who support it likewise don't find anything wrong with a Congressman yelling "You lie!" In the middle of a Presidential address. It is, after all, also considered free speech according to the Constitution. Right?

A candidate should be able to speak. However Trump make the decision not to speak there.

If people wish to protest, why shouldn't they be allowed to protest? Violent protesting is a different matter, and I think you'll find most people don't agree with that.

However, at no point was Trump being prevented from saying what he wanted to say. He said what he wanted to say. So... how can anyone complain his freedom of speech has been curtailed?

If a group wanted to protest the views of a candidate, they can do so peacefully outside the event. What reason could demonstrators possibly have or gain by planning to infiltrate a crowd of a political opponent, except to entice a confrontation with those supporters and disrupt, or otherwise shut down the candidate's political rally. is it any surprise that liberals don't like being confronted with an opposing view, otherwise they'd have more of a respect for an opposing point of view. Just look at the example they have in the White House, the apple really doesn't fall far from the tree, all while none of the democrat candidates are vocally opposing that any of their supporters place themselves in a position of confrontation at any Trump rally.

This fails as a strawman fallacy – another ridiculous lie from the right.

Liberals embrace opposing points of view, they encourage diversity and dissent.

Indeed, conservatives, for the most part, are hostile to dissent, to opposing points of view, consistent with their fear of change and diversity.

 

[easyt65]

Libs embrace oppjsing views and encourage diversity? What are you smoking?!

Tell that to the libs like BLM who called for the murder of whites, to Bill Ayers marching with libs - who bombed his own country and killed those who did not agree with him, to the libs chaining themselves to cars and blicking traffic so people couldn't go see / hear Trump, to those who disrespectfully try to shout down speakers at rallies because they don't want to listen ir let others hear...

Diversity? Democrats are offering the least racially diverse candidates in this entire race.

I don't think anyone has something more false today if not this month....

 

[Lumpy 1]

Libs embrace oppjsing views abd encourage diversity? What are you smoking?!

Tell that to the libs like BLM who called for the murder of whites, to Bill Ayers marching with libs who bombed his own country and killed those who did not agree with those who didagree withhim, to the libs chaining themselves to cars and blicking traffic so people couldn't go see / hear Trump, to those who disrespectfully try to shout down speakers at rallies because they don't want to listen ir let otherz hear...

Diversity? Democrats are offeri g the keast racially diverse candidates in this entire race.

I don't think anyone has something more false today if not this month....

It's tough posting on a phone, I gave up on it...

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Sheesh, that was weak, would you like to try again?

Nope. I'll stand by it regardless of whether you think it's weak or not. Would you like to respond to my comments or just make silly ass statements that don't do anything but avoid the topic WHICH YOU STARTED?

A candidate should be allowed to hold their own peaceful rally in the building and forum of their choosing, without having a group of disruptive demonstrators feeling the need to make a scene in order to silence the opposition. Those who support it likewise don't find anything wrong with a Congressman yelling "You lie!" In the middle of a Presidential address. It is, after all, also considered free speech according to the Constitution. Right?

A candidate should be able to speak. However Trump make the decision not to speak there.

If people wish to protest, why shouldn't they be allowed to protest? Violent protesting is a different matter, and I think you'll find most people don't agree with that.

However, at no point was Trump being prevented from saying what he wanted to say. He said what he wanted to say. So... how can anyone complain his freedom of speech has been curtailed?

If a group wanted to protest the views of a candidate, they can do so peacefully outside the event. What reason could demonstrators possibly have or gain by planning to infiltrate a crowd of a political opponent, except to entice a confrontation with those supporters and disrupt, or otherwise shut down the candidate's political rally. is it any surprise that liberals don't like being confronted with an opposing view, otherwise they'd have more of a respect for an opposing point of view. Just look at the example they have in the White House, the apple really doesn't fall far from the tree, all while none of the democrat candidates are vocally opposing that any of their supporters place themselves in a position of confrontation at any Trump rally.

This fails as a strawman fallacy – another ridiculous lie from the right.

Liberals embrace opposing points of view, they encourage diversity and dissent.

Indeed, conservatives, for the most part, are hostile to dissent, to opposing points of view, consistent with their fear of change and diversity.

Except for the fact it's only liberals we find who are protesting in groups at their opponents rally. Liberals choose to infiltrate a republican rally to place themselves in confrontation with Trump supporters, not the other way around. Yet none of the democrat candidates feel it's their job to control what their supporters do. I'm quite sure they support all the negative media attention the liberal camp is giving Trump, keeping the media focused on the disruption over the issues. If Republicans can get people focused on Hillary's emails, why not create an issue for the republicans to deal with? It's not hard at all to see the game of politics being played here.

 

[eagle1462010]

Nope .. A different Point of View ... it's just not Allowed.

Where else will Trump not be allowed to speak in America without the liberal pc nazi's threatening violence and hate?

Free speech is not the ability to talk where you like when you like.

So, if you and your other half are doing it in the bedroom and you stop me reading from Shakespeare, is this preventing free speech? NO.

Trump isn't being prevented from saying what he wants at all. He choose to cancel his speech but he still made it somewhere else.

So, stop talking nonsense.

You read Shakespeare will watching a couple do it?

You are a weirdo!

What a Lunatic.............