Free speech vs. taxation without representation

[WillowTree]

LOL! I never watch the pundits. Only people like you Willow need others to form your opinions.

oh yes,, that why when I said something unflattering about ms. maddow you jumped right in there to defend all her virtious qualities,, it's probably somewhere down in media.. next! try again. parott you are a maddow parott.

I don't remember ever doing such a thing. Do you have a link? The only possible comment you could make about her that would make me rally to her defense is if you made an anti-gay crack.

I never make anti gay cracks. I'm an each to their own live let live kinda girl.. no it's her journalistic drama queen roll eyes bullshit that I laugh at.. and get ready,, I was wrong, it was not you who jumped to her defense.. It's in the "Keith Olberman Ratings sinking" thread.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Free speech has limits, and any speech used to limit the free speech of others must be curtailed. Such behavior strikes at the heart of our democratic republic.
Under the guise of free speech, a minority of Americans are interferring with the sanctity of representative government, such behavior is reprehensible as well as criminal and should be condemned by anyone who believes in our Constitution. Those who support and encourage such behaviors are an afront to our Constitution and those who died in its defense.

 

[Ravi]

Free speech has limits, and any speech used to limit the free speech of others must be curtailed. Such behavior strikes at the heart of our democratic republic.
Under the guise of free speech, a minority of Americans are interferring with the sanctity of representative government, such behavior is reprehensible as well as criminal and should be condemned by anyone who believes in our Constitution. Those who support and encourage such behaviors are an afront to our Constitution and those who died in its defense.

Prolly. Nice screamname, btw.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Free speech has limits, and any speech used to limit the free speech of others must be curtailed. Such behavior strikes at the heart of our democratic republic.
Under the guise of free speech, a minority of Americans are interferring with the sanctity of representative government, such behavior is reprehensible as well as criminal and should be condemned by anyone who believes in our Constitution. Those who support and encourage such behaviors are an afront to our Constitution and those who died in its defense.

And who would that be "minority of Americans" be in this situation?

I'm pretty sure conservatives far outnumber liberals.

 

[manifold]

Free speech has limits, and any speech used to limit the free speech of others must be curtailed. Such behavior strikes at the heart of our democratic republic.
Under the guise of free speech, a minority of Americans are interferring with the sanctity of representative government, such behavior is reprehensible as well as criminal and should be condemned by anyone who believes in our Constitution. Those who support and encourage such behaviors are an afront to our Constitution and those who died in its defense.

And who would that be "minority of Americans" be in this situation?

I'm pretty sure conservatives far outnumber liberals.

So what? Because they might be a majority that makes it ok to silence the minority?

 

[KittenKoder]

LOL! I never watch the pundits. Only people like you Willow need others to form your opinions.

Um ... yeah ...

Obama is doing a horrible job.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Free speech has limits, and any speech used to limit the free speech of others must be curtailed. Such behavior strikes at the heart of our democratic republic.
Under the guise of free speech, a minority of Americans are interferring with the sanctity of representative government, such behavior is reprehensible as well as criminal and should be condemned by anyone who believes in our Constitution. Those who support and encourage such behaviors are an afront to our Constitution and those who died in its defense.

And who would that be "minority of Americans" be in this situation?

I'm pretty sure conservatives far outnumber liberals.

So what? Because they might be a majority that makes it ok to silence the minority?

Settle down Nancy, Wry Catcher mentioned " a minority of Americans are interferring with the sanctity of representative government" I simply ask who he thought the " minority of Americans" were in this case. But I'll answer your question witha question, democracy is rule by the majority is it not?

 

[manifold]

democracy is rule by the majority is it not?

Yes it is. But we are a republic, not a democracy, are we not?

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

Anything other than chanting "Obama" is a distraction..
Perhaps Obama will move to restrict speech critcal of his Obamacare program like he wanted to do to the stimulas package

First, we will expand the restriction on oral communications to cover all persons, not just federally registered lobbyists. For the first time, we will reach contacts not only by registered lobbyists but also by unregistered ones, as well as anyone else exerting influence on the process. We concluded this was necessary under the unique circumstances of the stimulus program.

The White House - Blog Post - Update on Recovery Act Lobbying Rules: New Limits on Special Interest Influence

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

And who would that be "minority of Americans" be in this situation?

I'm pretty sure conservatives far outnumber liberals.

So what? Because they might be a majority that makes it ok to silence the minority?

Settle down Nancy, Wry Catcher mentioned " a minority of Americans are interferring with the sanctity of representative government" I simply ask who he thought the " minority of Americans" were in this case. But I'll answer your question witha question, democracy is rule by the majority is it not?

We don't live in a democracy

 

[Ravi]

And who would that be "minority of Americans" be in this situation?

I'm pretty sure conservatives far outnumber liberals.

So what? Because they might be a majority that makes it ok to silence the minority?

Settle down Nancy, Wry Catcher mentioned " a minority of Americans are interferring with the sanctity of representative government" I simply ask who he thought the " minority of Americans" were in this case. But I'll answer your question witha question, democracy is rule by the majority is it not?

His use of the word minority didn't pertain to majority vs. minority. Give it a re-read.

 

[Wry Catcher]

"The object of this Essay is to assert one very simple principle, as entitled to govern absolutely the dealings of society with the individual in the way of compulsion and control, whether the means used be physical force in the form of legal penalties, or the moral coercion of public opinion. That principle is, that the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinions of others, to do so would be wise, or even right. These are good reasons for remonstrating with him, or reasoning with him, or persuading him, or entreating him, but not for compelling him, or visiting him with any evil, in case he do otherwise. To justify that, the conduct from which it is desired to deter him must be calculated to produce evil to someone else. The only part of the conduct of any one, for which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others. In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign." — John Stuart Mill, Essay on Liberty

Even if L...logic is correct and conservatives outnumber others, the rights of the minority (to engage in unfettered representative government) must not be infringed.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

democracy is rule by the majority is it not?

Yes it is. But we are a republic, not a democracy, are we not?

The United States is, indeed, a republic, not a democracy. Accurately defined, a democracy is a form of government in which the people decide policy matters directly--through town hall meetings or by voting on ballot initiatives and referendums. A republic, on the other hand, is a system in which the people choose representatives who, in turn, make policy decisions on their behalf. The Framers of the Constitution were altogether fearful of pure democracy. Everything they read and studied taught them that pure democracies "have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths".

By popular usage, however, the word "democracy" come to mean a form of government in which the government derives its power from the people and is accountable to them for the use of that power. In this sense the United States might accurately be called a democracy. However, there are examples of "pure democracy" at work in the United States today that would probably trouble the Framers of the Constitution if they were still alive to see them. Many states allow for policy questions to be decided directly by the people by voting on ballot initiatives or referendums. (Initiatives originate with, or are initiated by, the people while referendums originate with, or are referred to the people by, a state's legislative body.) That the Constitution does not provide for national ballot initiatives or referendums is indicative of the Framers' opposition to such mechanisms. They were not confident that the people had the time, wisdom or level-headedness to make complex decisions, such as those that are often presented on ballots on election day.

 

[WillowTree]

Free speech has limits, and any speech used to limit the free speech of others must be curtailed. Such behavior strikes at the heart of our democratic republic.
Under the guise of free speech, a minority of Americans are interferring with the sanctity of representative government, such behavior is reprehensible as well as criminal and should be condemned by anyone who believes in our Constitution. Those who support and encourage such behaviors are an afront to our Constitution and those who died in its defense.

Hey Buddy! You need to write a memo and send it to Columbia! I double dog dare you!
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=09QzeU30ozw&feature=related[/ame]

and tell these folks too



[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UiGWjoEhVug[/ame]

 

[Lonestar_logic]

So what? Because they might be a majority that makes it ok to silence the minority?

Settle down Nancy, Wry Catcher mentioned " a minority of Americans are interferring with the sanctity of representative government" I simply ask who he thought the " minority of Americans" were in this case. But I'll answer your question witha question, democracy is rule by the majority is it not?

His use of the word minority didn't pertain to majority vs. minority. Give it a re-read.

Are all ya'll stupid? I asked who he was referring to as the minority in this situation. Nothing more.

 

[Valerie]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J-Bpshk5nX0&feature=related]YouTube - Crowd Explodes When Arlen Specter Urges That We "Do This Fast"[/ame]





[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lKqqqwqgsF0&NR=1]YouTube - Legal Immigrant Voices Disgust At Entitlements, Arlen Specter Loves Entitlements That Are Bankrupt[/ame]

 

[Lonestar_logic]

"The object of this Essay is to assert one very simple principle, as entitled to govern absolutely the dealings of society with the individual in the way of compulsion and control, whether the means used be physical force in the form of legal penalties, or the moral coercion of public opinion. That principle is, that the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinions of others, to do so would be wise, or even right. These are good reasons for remonstrating with him, or reasoning with him, or persuading him, or entreating him, but not for compelling him, or visiting him with any evil, in case he do otherwise. To justify that, the conduct from which it is desired to deter him must be calculated to produce evil to someone else. The only part of the conduct of any one, for which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others. In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign." — John Stuart Mill, Essay on Liberty

Even if L...logic is correct and conservatives outnumber others, the rights of the minority (to engage in unfettered representative government) must not be infringed.

I'll try to ask you a less difficult question.

How is the majority infringing on the minority in these town hall situations?

 

[Wry Catcher]

Willow,
Columbia? The District of? Or the hundreds of other cities, schools, businesses and even people so named?

 

[WillowTree]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fseDXR-huXI]YouTube - Rally Against Romney "Booo"[/ame]

 

[WillowTree]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IH-0sMIOAZ0&feature=related]YouTube - Crowd booing George W. Bush at Obama inauguration[/ame]







so why don't you democrats cry us a fucking river???