daws101
Diamond Member
- Jul 7, 2011
- 41,526
- 3,122
off your meds? non sequiturAw, Daws, thank you for reminding me of the good old days when "sped" was the past tense of a verb pertaining to rate of motion.
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.
off your meds? non sequiturAw, Daws, thank you for reminding me of the good old days when "sped" was the past tense of a verb pertaining to rate of motion.
You don't have an answer. Just admit it.They say there is no such thing as a dumb question. They lie.I don't understand how you people buy into such non sense. What the fuck would democrats have to gain by trying to end free speech?
she won't,You don't have an answer. Just admit it.They say there is no such thing as a dumb question. They lie.I don't understand how you people buy into such non sense. What the fuck would democrats have to gain by trying to end free speech?
How about we simply shoot them?We all know that the left is committed to destroying free speech. Democrats are the party of "do what I say, not as I do..." also known as "It's okay for me..but not for you." They claim to embrace individual liberty..while at the same time advocating for government-mandated *equality* that literally forces people to act in ways that diametrically oppose their personal convictions.
"....the ends always justify the means for the leftist movement, principles be damned.
"It’s within this framework that liberals have been making a concerted effort to destroy their enemies—those who support liberty and individual choice."
"For many American liberals, you only have rights if you agree with their causes. If you disagree, you need to be silenced—and quickly."
The cure:
".... the “Free Speech Privacy Act,” would act as a “federalism shield” for free speech, “prohibiting the enforcement [by the states] of any law directly or indirectly conditioning the exercise of the rights of free speech and association on the disclosure of the identity of a person or entity who fears a reasonable probability of social, political, or economic retaliation from such disclosure.”
"The second proposed reform, named the “Publius Confidentiality Act,” would allow any individual to register a confidential identifier for use in political activities. This would make it even more difficult for groups to retaliate using personal attacks against people they disagree with. It was inspired by identity shield laws that protect victims of domestic violence.
"These reforms would ensure people could freely donate funds or engage in political activities without fear of being “exposed” for simply exercising their guaranteed freedoms, a principle that was an essential part of the United States’ founding."
The Left s Hidden Plan to End Free Speech and Two Ways to Stop It - Justin Haskins - Page 2
that's the right in a nut shell.
This isn't about Freedom of Speech. This is a cultural issue, a group of people who want to leverage our freedoms against us. What they do is perfectly legal, but it exposes their narcissism and their dishonesty and their cowardice. As long as they can intimidate and control and punish, they can control the conversation.
Freedom of speech? No. They use theirs to intimidate, control, punish. It's obviously against the spirit of the First Amendment, it makes a mockery out of the quote "I may not agree with what you say but I'll defend to the death your right to say it", but that's not unconstitutional.
.
only if they don't shoot you first.How about we simply shoot them?We all know that the left is committed to destroying free speech. Democrats are the party of "do what I say, not as I do..." also known as "It's okay for me..but not for you." They claim to embrace individual liberty..while at the same time advocating for government-mandated *equality* that literally forces people to act in ways that diametrically oppose their personal convictions.
"....the ends always justify the means for the leftist movement, principles be damned.
"It’s within this framework that liberals have been making a concerted effort to destroy their enemies—those who support liberty and individual choice."
"For many American liberals, you only have rights if you agree with their causes. If you disagree, you need to be silenced—and quickly."
The cure:
".... the “Free Speech Privacy Act,” would act as a “federalism shield” for free speech, “prohibiting the enforcement [by the states] of any law directly or indirectly conditioning the exercise of the rights of free speech and association on the disclosure of the identity of a person or entity who fears a reasonable probability of social, political, or economic retaliation from such disclosure.”
"The second proposed reform, named the “Publius Confidentiality Act,” would allow any individual to register a confidential identifier for use in political activities. This would make it even more difficult for groups to retaliate using personal attacks against people they disagree with. It was inspired by identity shield laws that protect victims of domestic violence.
"These reforms would ensure people could freely donate funds or engage in political activities without fear of being “exposed” for simply exercising their guaranteed freedoms, a principle that was an essential part of the United States’ founding."
The Left s Hidden Plan to End Free Speech and Two Ways to Stop It - Justin Haskins - Page 2
Ha! A patriotic conservative is worth ten liberals anyday. Besides, how many liberals own firearms?only if they don't shoot you first.How about we simply shoot them?We all know that the left is committed to destroying free speech. Democrats are the party of "do what I say, not as I do..." also known as "It's okay for me..but not for you." They claim to embrace individual liberty..while at the same time advocating for government-mandated *equality* that literally forces people to act in ways that diametrically oppose their personal convictions.
"....the ends always justify the means for the leftist movement, principles be damned.
"It’s within this framework that liberals have been making a concerted effort to destroy their enemies—those who support liberty and individual choice."
"For many American liberals, you only have rights if you agree with their causes. If you disagree, you need to be silenced—and quickly."
The cure:
".... the “Free Speech Privacy Act,” would act as a “federalism shield” for free speech, “prohibiting the enforcement [by the states] of any law directly or indirectly conditioning the exercise of the rights of free speech and association on the disclosure of the identity of a person or entity who fears a reasonable probability of social, political, or economic retaliation from such disclosure.”
"The second proposed reform, named the “Publius Confidentiality Act,” would allow any individual to register a confidential identifier for use in political activities. This would make it even more difficult for groups to retaliate using personal attacks against people they disagree with. It was inspired by identity shield laws that protect victims of domestic violence.
"These reforms would ensure people could freely donate funds or engage in political activities without fear of being “exposed” for simply exercising their guaranteed freedoms, a principle that was an essential part of the United States’ founding."
The Left s Hidden Plan to End Free Speech and Two Ways to Stop It - Justin Haskins - Page 2
since conservatives are not patriots, that's braggadocio at it's finestHa! A patriotic conservative is worth ten liberals anyday. Besides, how many liberals own firearms?only if they don't shoot you first.How about we simply shoot them?We all know that the left is committed to destroying free speech. Democrats are the party of "do what I say, not as I do..." also known as "It's okay for me..but not for you." They claim to embrace individual liberty..while at the same time advocating for government-mandated *equality* that literally forces people to act in ways that diametrically oppose their personal convictions.
"....the ends always justify the means for the leftist movement, principles be damned.
"It’s within this framework that liberals have been making a concerted effort to destroy their enemies—those who support liberty and individual choice."
"For many American liberals, you only have rights if you agree with their causes. If you disagree, you need to be silenced—and quickly."
The cure:
".... the “Free Speech Privacy Act,” would act as a “federalism shield” for free speech, “prohibiting the enforcement [by the states] of any law directly or indirectly conditioning the exercise of the rights of free speech and association on the disclosure of the identity of a person or entity who fears a reasonable probability of social, political, or economic retaliation from such disclosure.”
"The second proposed reform, named the “Publius Confidentiality Act,” would allow any individual to register a confidential identifier for use in political activities. This would make it even more difficult for groups to retaliate using personal attacks against people they disagree with. It was inspired by identity shield laws that protect victims of domestic violence.
"These reforms would ensure people could freely donate funds or engage in political activities without fear of being “exposed” for simply exercising their guaranteed freedoms, a principle that was an essential part of the United States’ founding."
The Left s Hidden Plan to End Free Speech and Two Ways to Stop It - Justin Haskins - Page 2
I really don't care how many libs own guns. Their dinky .380's are no match for what we're packing. They call us gun nuts for a reason. Lol.since conservatives are not patriots, that's braggadocio at it's finestHa! A patriotic conservative is worth ten liberals anyday. Besides, how many liberals own firearms?only if they don't shoot you first.How about we simply shoot them?We all know that the left is committed to destroying free speech. Democrats are the party of "do what I say, not as I do..." also known as "It's okay for me..but not for you." They claim to embrace individual liberty..while at the same time advocating for government-mandated *equality* that literally forces people to act in ways that diametrically oppose their personal convictions.
"....the ends always justify the means for the leftist movement, principles be damned.
"It’s within this framework that liberals have been making a concerted effort to destroy their enemies—those who support liberty and individual choice."
"For many American liberals, you only have rights if you agree with their causes. If you disagree, you need to be silenced—and quickly."
The cure:
".... the “Free Speech Privacy Act,” would act as a “federalism shield” for free speech, “prohibiting the enforcement [by the states] of any law directly or indirectly conditioning the exercise of the rights of free speech and association on the disclosure of the identity of a person or entity who fears a reasonable probability of social, political, or economic retaliation from such disclosure.”
"The second proposed reform, named the “Publius Confidentiality Act,” would allow any individual to register a confidential identifier for use in political activities. This would make it even more difficult for groups to retaliate using personal attacks against people they disagree with. It was inspired by identity shield laws that protect victims of domestic violence.
"These reforms would ensure people could freely donate funds or engage in political activities without fear of being “exposed” for simply exercising their guaranteed freedoms, a principle that was an essential part of the United States’ founding."
The Left s Hidden Plan to End Free Speech and Two Ways to Stop It - Justin Haskins - Page 2
btw the % of democrats that own gun has risen since then
That's one way of dealing with it.How about we simply shoot them?We all know that the left is committed to destroying free speech. Democrats are the party of "do what I say, not as I do..." also known as "It's okay for me..but not for you." They claim to embrace individual liberty..while at the same time advocating for government-mandated *equality* that literally forces people to act in ways that diametrically oppose their personal convictions.
"....the ends always justify the means for the leftist movement, principles be damned.
"It’s within this framework that liberals have been making a concerted effort to destroy their enemies—those who support liberty and individual choice."
"For many American liberals, you only have rights if you agree with their causes. If you disagree, you need to be silenced—and quickly."
The cure:
".... the “Free Speech Privacy Act,” would act as a “federalism shield” for free speech, “prohibiting the enforcement [by the states] of any law directly or indirectly conditioning the exercise of the rights of free speech and association on the disclosure of the identity of a person or entity who fears a reasonable probability of social, political, or economic retaliation from such disclosure.”
"The second proposed reform, named the “Publius Confidentiality Act,” would allow any individual to register a confidential identifier for use in political activities. This would make it even more difficult for groups to retaliate using personal attacks against people they disagree with. It was inspired by identity shield laws that protect victims of domestic violence.
"These reforms would ensure people could freely donate funds or engage in political activities without fear of being “exposed” for simply exercising their guaranteed freedoms, a principle that was an essential part of the United States’ founding."
The Left s Hidden Plan to End Free Speech and Two Ways to Stop It - Justin Haskins - Page 2
This doesn't constitute a 'suppression' of the right to exercise free speech, as First Amendment jurisprudence applies solely to government, not private persons or organizations; indeed, the state could be in violation of the First Amendment if it sought to preempt the LGBT group from protesting against the organization that campaigns to deny same-sex couples their right to due process and equal protection of the law.Someone donates to an organization that campaigns to stop same sex marriage. Under an FOIA request, an LGBT group acquires the list of donors to that organization and then starts harassing the donors. Egging their houses, keying their cars, telephonic death threats, and so forth. Thus scaring people into not making any donations to organizations unliked by the mob.
This type of suppression of the exercise of free speech certainly should be addressed.
However, this may all be a giant Trojan horse whose true aim is to make dark donations by large donors even darker under the guise of protecting ordinary people from harassment by crazed hippies.
Discuss.
Correct.Open Carry protests outside of "free speech zones" on college campuses would be the best way.
Why yes, because nothing shows that you love free speech more than threatening to kill other people with a weapon should they open their mouths.
Bravo. Interesting and creative system. I think there is a name for it.
Oh yeah: totalitarianism.
DO this mean all police carrying a firearm on campus are threatening to kill others?
Are you equating trained police officers with gunnutz`?
Seeing they shoot people in the back 5 times and then laugh about it and plant tasers on them, and registered gun owners rarely ever use their firearm to kill anyone, I'd say the police are far more threatening than legal non-police gun owners.
So not, I'm not equating them to "trained police officers," I'm pedestalizing them compared to police.
120,000 paid cops in the USA. 3 to 4 incidents of the type you describe, per year. Incredibly low percentage of cops who do this. Of course, it should never happen. But you blame all of coppery for this?
Again, how do we protect people who are threatened after making donations to an organization that is hated by the mob? Their names appear on a list of donors. This list can be used to identify targets for harassment.
You don't have an answer. Just admit it.They say there is no such thing as a dumb question. They lie.I don't understand how you people buy into such non sense. What the fuck would democrats have to gain by trying to end free speech?
I really don't care how many libs own guns. Their dinky .380's are no match for what we're packing. They call us gun nuts for a reason. Lol.
This doesn't constitute a 'suppression' of the right to exercise free speech, as First Amendment jurisprudence applies solely to government, not private persons or organizations; indeed, the state could be in violation of the First Amendment if it sought to preempt the LGBT group from protesting against the organization that campaigns to deny same-sex couples their right to due process and equal protection of the law.Someone donates to an organization that campaigns to stop same sex marriage. Under an FOIA request, an LGBT group acquires the list of donors to that organization and then starts harassing the donors. Egging their houses, keying their cars, telephonic death threats, and so forth. Thus scaring people into not making any donations to organizations unliked by the mob.
This type of suppression of the exercise of free speech certainly should be addressed.
However, this may all be a giant Trojan horse whose true aim is to make dark donations by large donors even darker under the guise of protecting ordinary people from harassment by crazed hippies.
Discuss.
As for “harassing the donors. Egging their houses, keying their cars, telephonic death threats, and so forth,” these are criminal acts also having nothing to do with the issue of free speech, where members of the LGBT group would likely be subject to criminal prosecution.
One private citizen or organization cannot 'violate' the free speech rights of another private citizen or organization, only government has the authority to preempt free speech – or not, if that act of preemption is determined to be un-Constitutional by the courts.
caliber means nothing if you can't shoot straight.. btw who the fuck is we?I really don't care how many libs own guns. Their dinky .380's are no match for what we're packing. They call us gun nuts for a reason. Lol.since conservatives are not patriots, that's braggadocio at it's finestHa! A patriotic conservative is worth ten liberals anyday. Besides, how many liberals own firearms?only if they don't shoot you first.How about we simply shoot them?We all know that the left is committed to destroying free speech. Democrats are the party of "do what I say, not as I do..." also known as "It's okay for me..but not for you." They claim to embrace individual liberty..while at the same time advocating for government-mandated *equality* that literally forces people to act in ways that diametrically oppose their personal convictions.
"....the ends always justify the means for the leftist movement, principles be damned.
"It’s within this framework that liberals have been making a concerted effort to destroy their enemies—those who support liberty and individual choice."
"For many American liberals, you only have rights if you agree with their causes. If you disagree, you need to be silenced—and quickly."
The cure:
".... the “Free Speech Privacy Act,” would act as a “federalism shield” for free speech, “prohibiting the enforcement [by the states] of any law directly or indirectly conditioning the exercise of the rights of free speech and association on the disclosure of the identity of a person or entity who fears a reasonable probability of social, political, or economic retaliation from such disclosure.”
"The second proposed reform, named the “Publius Confidentiality Act,” would allow any individual to register a confidential identifier for use in political activities. This would make it even more difficult for groups to retaliate using personal attacks against people they disagree with. It was inspired by identity shield laws that protect victims of domestic violence.
"These reforms would ensure people could freely donate funds or engage in political activities without fear of being “exposed” for simply exercising their guaranteed freedoms, a principle that was an essential part of the United States’ founding."
The Left s Hidden Plan to End Free Speech and Two Ways to Stop It - Justin Haskins - Page 2
btw the % of democrats that own gun has risen since then