Nobody is infringing on Ann Coulter's right to free speech

[Auld Phart]

That seems to be the definition of infringing free speech.

So in your estimation faction A has the right to voice their opinions regarding the faction B's free speech, but faction B is not to be given reciprocal free speech voicing their opinions on faction A's? There's several names for that type of thinking.

Do you consider this infringement of free speech?



Why, or why not?

That seems to be the definition of infringing free speech.

You wrote that in response to this regarding Coulter;

because protestors caused her to be disinvited from speaking at U.C. Berkley.

That had nothing to do with infringing speech, because Coulter didn't show up for her stunt and stab at further agitating to get more publicity. There was no infringement because the two factions never came together for any type of exchange, fool! And it had nothing to do with BLM infringing on Sander's speech. Two different things altogether you are trying to meld together in your logical fallacy!

There was no infringement because the two factions never came together for any type of exchange, fool!

Tell me, thoughtless.

did the people that contracted her pull their offer because of the threats made about her speaking?

She has to have inflammatory speeches, since she got left behind on looks..

Never listened to her, I'll take your word.

But the point is infringement.

She has the right to spew what she wants, per the Constitution.

 

[Moonglow]

So in your estimation faction A has the right to voice their opinions regarding the faction B's free speech, but faction B is not to be given reciprocal free speech voicing their opinions on faction A's? There's several names for that type of thinking.

Do you consider this infringement of free speech?



Why, or why not?

That seems to be the definition of infringing free speech.

You wrote that in response to this regarding Coulter;

because protestors caused her to be disinvited from speaking at U.C. Berkley.

That had nothing to do with infringing speech, because Coulter didn't show up for her stunt and stab at further agitating to get more publicity. There was no infringement because the two factions never came together for any type of exchange, fool! And it had nothing to do with BLM infringing on Sander's speech. Two different things altogether you are trying to meld together in your logical fallacy!

There was no infringement because the two factions never came together for any type of exchange, fool!

Tell me, thoughtless.

did the people that contracted her pull their offer because of the threats made about her speaking?

She has to have inflammatory speeches, since she got left behind on looks..

Never listened to her, I'll take your word.

But the point is infringement.

She has the right to spew what she wants, per the Constitution.

Everyone does, yet not everyone gets in the same doors..

 

[Harry Dresden]

That seems to be the definition of infringing free speech.

So in your estimation faction A has the right to voice their opinions regarding the faction B's free speech, but faction B is not to be given reciprocal free speech voicing their opinions on faction A's? There's several names for that type of thinking.

Do you consider this infringement of free speech?



Why, or why not?

That seems to be the definition of infringing free speech.

You wrote that in response to this regarding Coulter;

because protestors caused her to be disinvited from speaking at U.C. Berkley.

That had nothing to do with infringing speech, because Coulter didn't show up for her stunt and stab at further agitating to get more publicity. There was no infringement because the two factions never came together for any type of exchange, fool! And it had nothing to do with BLM infringing on Sander's speech. Two different things altogether you are trying to meld together in your logical fallacy!

There was no infringement because the two factions never came together for any type of exchange, fool!

Tell me, thoughtless.

did the people that contracted her pull their offer because of the threats made about her speaking?

She has to have inflammatory speeches, since she got left behind on looks..

moony you know dam well you would do her.....

 

[FJO]

Just look at all the stupid ridiculous books this neo-Nazi witch has published.

Amazon.com: Ann Coulter

Nobody can say with a straight face that her right to free speech is being infringed simply because protestors caused her to be disinvited from speaking at U.C. Berkley.

Being invited to speak at a University is a privilege, not a right. No one ever invites me to speak at universities and I'm a lot smarter and articulate than Coulter.

If she dares, she can place a soap box on the campus parking lot, stand on it, and spout her racist garbage to her heart's content.

However, she will not do that because she is a coward who hides behind security guards.

You are an Idiot who is no worthy go lick Ms, Coulter's shoes.

You are coward who hides behind the anonymity of the internet.

Face to face with her, she would slap you into reality, literally and figuratively, where you belong.

Now, list YOUR best selling books, YOUR best appearences on TV, YOUR excuses for existence and YOUR qualifications to justify your outrageous claims.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

Just look at all the stupid ridiculous books this neo-Nazi witch has published.

Amazon.com: Ann Coulter

Nobody can say with a straight face that her right to free speech is being infringed simply because protestors caused her to be disinvited from speaking at U.C. Berkley.

Being invited to speak at a University is a privilege, not a right. No one ever invites me to speak at universities and I'm a lot smarter and articulate than Coulter.

If she dares, she can place a soap box on the campus parking lot, stand on it, and spout her racist garbage to her heart's content.

However, she will not do that because she is a coward who hides behind security guards.

because protestors caused her to be disinvited from speaking at U.C. Berkley.

That seems to be the definition of infringing free speech.

So in your estimation faction A has the right to voice their opinions regarding the faction B's free speech, but faction B is not to be given reciprocal free speech voicing their opinions on faction A's? There's several names for that type of thinking.

Do you consider this infringement of free speech?



Why, or why not?

That seems to be the definition of infringing free speech.

You wrote that in response to this regarding Coulter;

because protestors caused her to be disinvited from speaking at U.C. Berkley.

That had nothing to do with infringing speech, because Coulter didn't show up for her stunt and stab at further agitating to get more publicity. There was no infringement because the two factions never came together for any type of exchange, fool! And it had nothing to do with BLM infringing on Sander's speech. Two different things altogether you are trying to meld together in your logical fallacy!

There was no infringement because the two factions never came together for any type of exchange, fool!

Tell me, thoughtless.

did the people that contracted her pull their offer because of the threats made about her speaking?

That's the claim and I have no reason to believe otherwise at this time. Do you know the definition of the verb infringe? What action did those protesters take to exercise their free speech which impeded Coulter's free speech? NONE! Coulter was disinvited by a third party based on public law and order concerns. To claim otherwise is nothing more than willful fabrication!

 

[Auld Phart]

That seems to be the definition of infringing free speech.

So in your estimation faction A has the right to voice their opinions regarding the faction B's free speech, but faction B is not to be given reciprocal free speech voicing their opinions on faction A's? There's several names for that type of thinking.

Do you consider this infringement of free speech?



Why, or why not?

That seems to be the definition of infringing free speech.

You wrote that in response to this regarding Coulter;

because protestors caused her to be disinvited from speaking at U.C. Berkley.

That had nothing to do with infringing speech, because Coulter didn't show up for her stunt and stab at further agitating to get more publicity. There was no infringement because the two factions never came together for any type of exchange, fool! And it had nothing to do with BLM infringing on Sander's speech. Two different things altogether you are trying to meld together in your logical fallacy!

There was no infringement because the two factions never came together for any type of exchange, fool!

Tell me, thoughtless.

did the people that contracted her pull their offer because of the threats made about her speaking?

That's the claim and I have no reason to believe otherwise at this time. Do you know the definition of the verb infringe? What action did those protesters take to exercise their free speech which impeded Coulter's free speech? NONE! Coulter was disinvited by a third party based on public law and order concerns. To claim otherwise is nothing more than willful fabrication!

What action did those protesters take to exercise their free speech which impeded Coulter's free speech?

The threat of extreme violence.

If Bernie can see it, if Maher can see it, if Pelosi can see it,

why can't you?

 

[Moonglow]

So in your estimation faction A has the right to voice their opinions regarding the faction B's free speech, but faction B is not to be given reciprocal free speech voicing their opinions on faction A's? There's several names for that type of thinking.

Do you consider this infringement of free speech?



Why, or why not?

That seems to be the definition of infringing free speech.

You wrote that in response to this regarding Coulter;

because protestors caused her to be disinvited from speaking at U.C. Berkley.

That had nothing to do with infringing speech, because Coulter didn't show up for her stunt and stab at further agitating to get more publicity. There was no infringement because the two factions never came together for any type of exchange, fool! And it had nothing to do with BLM infringing on Sander's speech. Two different things altogether you are trying to meld together in your logical fallacy!

There was no infringement because the two factions never came together for any type of exchange, fool!

Tell me, thoughtless.

did the people that contracted her pull their offer because of the threats made about her speaking?

She has to have inflammatory speeches, since she got left behind on looks..

moony you know dam well you would do her.....

Well, maybe after eye removal..

 

[Auld Phart]

Do you consider this infringement of free speech?



Why, or why not?

That seems to be the definition of infringing free speech.

You wrote that in response to this regarding Coulter;

because protestors caused her to be disinvited from speaking at U.C. Berkley.

That had nothing to do with infringing speech, because Coulter didn't show up for her stunt and stab at further agitating to get more publicity. There was no infringement because the two factions never came together for any type of exchange, fool! And it had nothing to do with BLM infringing on Sander's speech. Two different things altogether you are trying to meld together in your logical fallacy!

There was no infringement because the two factions never came together for any type of exchange, fool!

Tell me, thoughtless.

did the people that contracted her pull their offer because of the threats made about her speaking?

She has to have inflammatory speeches, since she got left behind on looks..

moony you know dam well you would do her.....

Well, maybe after eye removal..

Yours, or hers?

 

[Moonglow]

You wrote that in response to this regarding Coulter;
That had nothing to do with infringing speech, because Coulter didn't show up for her stunt and stab at further agitating to get more publicity. There was no infringement because the two factions never came together for any type of exchange, fool! And it had nothing to do with BLM infringing on Sander's speech. Two different things altogether you are trying to meld together in your logical fallacy!

There was no infringement because the two factions never came together for any type of exchange, fool!

Tell me, thoughtless.

did the people that contracted her pull their offer because of the threats made about her speaking?

She has to have inflammatory speeches, since she got left behind on looks..

moony you know dam well you would do her.....

Well, maybe after eye removal..

Yours, or hers?

I may like her better with hers removed..

 

[ColonelAngus]

Just look at all the stupid ridiculous books this neo-Nazi witch has published.

Amazon.com: Ann Coulter

Nobody can say with a straight face that her right to free speech is being infringed simply because protestors caused her to be disinvited from speaking at U.C. Berkley.

Being invited to speak at a University is a privilege, not a right. No one ever invites me to speak at universities and I'm a lot smarter and articulate than Coulter.

If she dares, she can place a soap box on the campus parking lot, stand on it, and spout her racist garbage to her heart's content.

However, she will not do that because she is a coward who hides behind security guards.

Funny...Obama disagrees.

 

[deannalw]

Just look at all the stupid ridiculous books this neo-Nazi witch has published.

Amazon.com: Ann Coulter

Nobody can say with a straight face that her right to free speech is being infringed simply because protestors caused her to be disinvited from speaking at U.C. Berkley.

Being invited to speak at a University is a privilege, not a right. No one ever invites me to speak at universities and I'm a lot smarter and articulate than Coulter.

If she dares, she can place a soap box on the campus parking lot, stand on it, and spout her racist garbage to her heart's content.

However, she will not do that because she is a coward who hides behind security guards.

She won't do that because no one's going to pay her $20,000 to do that, which was to be her payment to perform at Berkeley.

That isn't very much...bill clinton, the rapist, got 500,000 dollars for speeches in Russia for putin, when hilary was Secretary of State.....

They value men as such in Russia...

Did you snicker to yourself a lil bit when you wrote that?
You did, didn't ya?
I wonder if ole Bill has another black eye from that crazy bitch he married?

 

[NYcarbineer]

[
You are an Idiot who is no worthy go lick Ms, Coulter's shoes.

.

Are you implying that you are worthy of licking Coulter's shoes?

 

[NYcarbineer]

So in your estimation faction A has the right to voice their opinions regarding the faction B's free speech, but faction B is not to be given reciprocal free speech voicing their opinions on faction A's? There's several names for that type of thinking.

Do you consider this infringement of free speech?



Why, or why not?

That seems to be the definition of infringing free speech.

You wrote that in response to this regarding Coulter;

because protestors caused her to be disinvited from speaking at U.C. Berkley.

That had nothing to do with infringing speech, because Coulter didn't show up for her stunt and stab at further agitating to get more publicity. There was no infringement because the two factions never came together for any type of exchange, fool! And it had nothing to do with BLM infringing on Sander's speech. Two different things altogether you are trying to meld together in your logical fallacy!

There was no infringement because the two factions never came together for any type of exchange, fool!

Tell me, thoughtless.

did the people that contracted her pull their offer because of the threats made about her speaking?

That's the claim and I have no reason to believe otherwise at this time. Do you know the definition of the verb infringe? What action did those protesters take to exercise their free speech which impeded Coulter's free speech? NONE! Coulter was disinvited by a third party based on public law and order concerns. To claim otherwise is nothing more than willful fabrication!

What action did those protesters take to exercise their free speech which impeded Coulter's free speech?

The threat of extreme violence.

If Bernie can see it, if Maher can see it, if Pelosi can see it,

why can't you?

Out of curiosity I'd like to know if you know that much of the actual violence at Berkeley consisted of clashes between left and right wing extremist groups.

 

[Harry Dresden]

Do you consider this infringement of free speech?



Why, or why not?

That seems to be the definition of infringing free speech.

You wrote that in response to this regarding Coulter;

because protestors caused her to be disinvited from speaking at U.C. Berkley.

That had nothing to do with infringing speech, because Coulter didn't show up for her stunt and stab at further agitating to get more publicity. There was no infringement because the two factions never came together for any type of exchange, fool! And it had nothing to do with BLM infringing on Sander's speech. Two different things altogether you are trying to meld together in your logical fallacy!

There was no infringement because the two factions never came together for any type of exchange, fool!

Tell me, thoughtless.

did the people that contracted her pull their offer because of the threats made about her speaking?

She has to have inflammatory speeches, since she got left behind on looks..

moony you know dam well you would do her.....

Well, maybe after eye removal..

more like after a few beers and bowl....

 

[Auld Phart]

Do you consider this infringement of free speech?



Why, or why not?

That seems to be the definition of infringing free speech.

You wrote that in response to this regarding Coulter;

because protestors caused her to be disinvited from speaking at U.C. Berkley.

That had nothing to do with infringing speech, because Coulter didn't show up for her stunt and stab at further agitating to get more publicity. There was no infringement because the two factions never came together for any type of exchange, fool! And it had nothing to do with BLM infringing on Sander's speech. Two different things altogether you are trying to meld together in your logical fallacy!

There was no infringement because the two factions never came together for any type of exchange, fool!

Tell me, thoughtless.

did the people that contracted her pull their offer because of the threats made about her speaking?

That's the claim and I have no reason to believe otherwise at this time. Do you know the definition of the verb infringe? What action did those protesters take to exercise their free speech which impeded Coulter's free speech? NONE! Coulter was disinvited by a third party based on public law and order concerns. To claim otherwise is nothing more than willful fabrication!

What action did those protesters take to exercise their free speech which impeded Coulter's free speech?

The threat of extreme violence.

If Bernie can see it, if Maher can see it, if Pelosi can see it,

why can't you?

Out of curiosity I'd like to know if you know that much of the actual violence at Berkeley consisted of clashes between left and right wing extremist groups.

Don't doubt it a bit.

(do you have a point?)

 

[Moonglow]

You wrote that in response to this regarding Coulter;
That had nothing to do with infringing speech, because Coulter didn't show up for her stunt and stab at further agitating to get more publicity. There was no infringement because the two factions never came together for any type of exchange, fool! And it had nothing to do with BLM infringing on Sander's speech. Two different things altogether you are trying to meld together in your logical fallacy!

There was no infringement because the two factions never came together for any type of exchange, fool!

Tell me, thoughtless.

did the people that contracted her pull their offer because of the threats made about her speaking?

She has to have inflammatory speeches, since she got left behind on looks..

moony you know dam well you would do her.....

Well, maybe after eye removal..

more like after a few beers and bowl....

More like a pony keg..

 

[Dim Bulb]

Just look at all the stupid ridiculous books this neo-Nazi witch has published.

Amazon.com: Ann Coulter

Nobody can say with a straight face that her right to free speech is being infringed simply because protestors caused her to be disinvited from speaking at U.C. Berkley.

Being invited to speak at a University is a privilege, not a right. No one ever invites me to speak at universities and I'm a lot smarter and articulate than Coulter.

If she dares, she can place a soap box on the campus parking lot, stand on it, and spout her racist garbage to her heart's content.

However, she will not do that because she is a coward who hides behind security guards.

There's a simple formula with Ms. Coulter. The louder she screams, the more money she makes. It's that simple. Good example of the Ponzi Scheme of Outrage. And of capitalism. And of PT Barnum being correct once again.

 

[Correll]

Just look at all the stupid ridiculous books this neo-Nazi witch has published.

Amazon.com: Ann Coulter

Nobody can say with a straight face that her right to free speech is being infringed simply because protestors caused her to be disinvited from speaking at U.C. Berkley.

Being invited to speak at a University is a privilege, not a right. No one ever invites me to speak at universities and I'm a lot smarter and articulate than Coulter.

If she dares, she can place a soap box on the campus parking lot, stand on it, and spout her racist garbage to her heart's content.

However, she will not do that because she is a coward who hides behind security guards.

There's a simple formula with Ms. Coulter. The louder she screams, the more money she makes. It's that simple. Good example of the Ponzi Scheme of Outrage. And of capitalism. And of PT Barnum being correct once again.

Your rationalizations for your side's brown shirt tactics are noted. They will not protect you if this nation keeps going down this path.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Just look at all the stupid ridiculous books this neo-Nazi witch has published.

Amazon.com: Ann Coulter

Nobody can say with a straight face that her right to free speech is being infringed simply because protestors caused her to be disinvited from speaking at U.C. Berkley.

Being invited to speak at a University is a privilege, not a right. No one ever invites me to speak at universities and I'm a lot smarter and articulate than Coulter.

If she dares, she can place a soap box on the campus parking lot, stand on it, and spout her racist garbage to her heart's content.

However, she will not do that because she is a coward who hides behind security guards.

because protestors caused her to be disinvited from speaking at U.C. Berkley.

That seems to be the definition of infringing free speech.

No, it's not.

Not even close.

Read the first five words of the First Amendment and try to find where "congress made a law ..."


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com

 

[Correll]

Just look at all the stupid ridiculous books this neo-Nazi witch has published.

Amazon.com: Ann Coulter

Nobody can say with a straight face that her right to free speech is being infringed simply because protestors caused her to be disinvited from speaking at U.C. Berkley.

Being invited to speak at a University is a privilege, not a right. No one ever invites me to speak at universities and I'm a lot smarter and articulate than Coulter.

If she dares, she can place a soap box on the campus parking lot, stand on it, and spout her racist garbage to her heart's content.

However, she will not do that because she is a coward who hides behind security guards.

because protestors caused her to be disinvited from speaking at U.C. Berkley.

That seems to be the definition of infringing free speech.

No, it's not.

Not even close.

Read the first five words of the First Amendment and try to find where "congress made a law ..."


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com

Your word games won't protect you if this nation keeps going down this path.