One Cannot Vote Democrat....

[Hossfly]

…and be considered an American.


1. I base that on a number of things, such as these views becoming Democrat mainstream:

"Meet the New Democratic Socialists, Same as the Old Democratic Socialists!

...a message to the Democratic Establishment that the base of the party is moving decidedly more towards “Democratic socialism.” The only problem is that it seems nobody can get any specific answers on what this new “Democratic Socialism” actually is and how it differs from plain, run of the mill, failed socialism. Not even liberals can decide.

Abolish profit

Abolish prisons

Abolish cash bail

Abolish borders"
Meet the New Democratic Socialists, Same as the Old Democratic Socialists!


This is what you stand for when you vote Democrat.




2. But most important is the Democrat/Liberal anti-American war on free speech.

“Free speech as we’ve been chronicling here at LI for ages has come under heightened attack in recent years, particularly on our nation’s college campuses. We’ve seen poll after poll in which large swaths of young Americans (mostly, but not exclusively, leftists) believe that speech should be more restricted.

We’ve heard politicians argue that “hate speech” is not protected by the First Amendment, and we’ve seen Yale students organize a petition to repeal the First Amendment. We’ve heard that words are “violent,” and we’ve heard that “offensive,” “triggering,” and “hurtful” speech—speech someone in ear-shot hears and feels offended, triggered, or hurt by—should be unceremoniously restricted or even banned.” Who's afraid of the 1st Amendment?





3. We've been warned:

“Fascism may be so gradual in the United States that most voters will not be aware of its existence. The true Fascist leaders will not be present imitators of German Fuhrer and Italian condottieri, prancing in silver shirts. They will be judicious, black-frocked gentlemen; graduates of the best universities; disciples of Nicholas Murray Butler and Walter Lippmann.”
The 7-0-1 | National Review

I can not vote Republican without being allied with Russia.

Who told you that lie, Clarabell?

 

[Hossfly]

…and be considered an American.


1. I base that on a number of things, such as these views becoming Democrat mainstream:

"Meet the New Democratic Socialists, Same as the Old Democratic Socialists!

...a message to the Democratic Establishment that the base of the party is moving decidedly more towards “Democratic socialism.” The only problem is that it seems nobody can get any specific answers on what this new “Democratic Socialism” actually is and how it differs from plain, run of the mill, failed socialism. Not even liberals can decide.

Abolish profit

Abolish prisons

Abolish cash bail

Abolish borders"
Meet the New Democratic Socialists, Same as the Old Democratic Socialists!


This is what you stand for when you vote Democrat.




2. But most important is the Democrat/Liberal anti-American war on free speech.

“Free speech as we’ve been chronicling here at LI for ages has come under heightened attack in recent years, particularly on our nation’s college campuses. We’ve seen poll after poll in which large swaths of young Americans (mostly, but not exclusively, leftists) believe that speech should be more restricted.

We’ve heard politicians argue that “hate speech” is not protected by the First Amendment, and we’ve seen Yale students organize a petition to repeal the First Amendment. We’ve heard that words are “violent,” and we’ve heard that “offensive,” “triggering,” and “hurtful” speech—speech someone in ear-shot hears and feels offended, triggered, or hurt by—should be unceremoniously restricted or even banned.” Who's afraid of the 1st Amendment?





3. We've been warned:

“Fascism may be so gradual in the United States that most voters will not be aware of its existence. The true Fascist leaders will not be present imitators of German Fuhrer and Italian condottieri, prancing in silver shirts. They will be judicious, black-frocked gentlemen; graduates of the best universities; disciples of Nicholas Murray Butler and Walter Lippmann.”
The 7-0-1 | National Review

There is a reason why Socialism has failed every time it’s been tried… It’s fucked up

Socialism hasn't failed in the U.S., western Europe, Scandinavia, Canada, and Australia.

Still works in China also and that place is the most favorite for US businessmen.. Funny how that works isn't it? The plebs hate socialism and corporations embrace it.. Oh well, propaganda must be spread to foster hate in the wrong direction.

It works in any country with a dictator. Russia, China, North Korea, Cuba, etc, etc all have a despot for a leader.

1. des·pot
   /ˈdespət/
   noun
   • 1.a ruler or other person who holds absolute power, typically one who exercises it in a cruel or oppressive way.
   Powered by Oxford Dictionaries​

 

[Natural Citizen]

If voting made a darned bit of difference it would be illegal.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I think PoliticalChic's threads should start with "TL;DR Warning:"

How about this: those who shun learning, avoid this thread....

Would that keep you away?

You're just a talking points machine. Not much to learn there. You need to go beyond partisan ideology to actually learn something. Like how both parties are helping to drive the American bus into a lake.

"You're just a talking points machine."


Actually...a 'fact' machine.

That's why you are unable to dispute them.


Get it?

 

[PoliticalChic]

5. “Earlier this week, Obama-appointed Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan wrote in her minority dissent to the Janus ruling that the Court had “weaponized the First Amendment.”

The majority opinion dwelt on issues of compelled speech, noting that “because such compulsion so plainly violates the Constitution, most of our free speech cases have involved restrictions on what can be said, rather than laws compelling speech. But measures compelling speech are at least as threatening.”

Kagan, however, has other ideas and claimed in her dissent that

“The First Amendment was meant for better things,” she concluded.

Kagan’s fantastical notion of “black-robed rulers overriding citizens’ choices” by “weaponizing the First Amendment” is puzzling. Citizens in non-right-to-work states are completely free to join a union if they so wish, and in doing so, commit to paying union dues. The only change here is that unions can no longer extort dues from non-members in any state.

Citizens’ choices have not been overridden; indeed, citizen choice is expanded under this ruling. They can join a union or not join a union, those who do not join cannot be compelled to pay union dues, but they are also not barred from doing so if they wish.

Her point about “weaponizing the First Amendment” is equally confounding. The Founders intended the First Amendment to be a weapon . . . against government tyranny and oppression. They were insistent that freedom of speech was required to check government and to maintain a free and independent citizenry.” Who's afraid of the 1st Amendment?


A mainstream Democrat view?



One can only wonder if any greeting of Justice Kagan should include “Sieg Heil!”

 

[my2¢]

I have a Catch-22 view on this as I feel the thought of somebody taking it upon themselves to define who is American (or not) is in itself un-American.

 

[Hossfly]

5. “Earlier this week, Obama-appointed Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan wrote in her minority dissent to the Janus ruling that the Court had “weaponized the First Amendment.”

The majority opinion dwelt on issues of compelled speech, noting that “because such compulsion so plainly violates the Constitution, most of our free speech cases have involved restrictions on what can be said, rather than laws compelling speech. But measures compelling speech are at least as threatening.”

Kagan, however, has other ideas and claimed in her dissent that

“The First Amendment was meant for better things,” she concluded.

Kagan’s fantastical notion of “black-robed rulers overriding citizens’ choices” by “weaponizing the First Amendment” is puzzling. Citizens in non-right-to-work states are completely free to join a union if they so wish, and in doing so, commit to paying union dues. The only change here is that unions can no longer extort dues from non-members in any state.

Citizens’ choices have not been overridden; indeed, citizen choice is expanded under this ruling. They can join a union or not join a union, those who do not join cannot be compelled to pay union dues, but they are also not barred from doing so if they wish.

Her point about “weaponizing the First Amendment” is equally confounding. The Founders intended the First Amendment to be a weapon . . . against government tyranny and oppression. They were insistent that freedom of speech was required to check government and to maintain a free and independent citizenry.” Who's afraid of the 1st Amendment?


A mainstream Democrat view?



One can only wonder if any greeting of Justice Kagan should include “Sieg Heil!”

Screw Kagan and the rest of the SCOTUS Mexicrats. (With a jackhammer)

 

[PoliticalChic]

I have a Catch-22 view on this as I feel the thought of somebody taking it upon themselves to define who is American (or not) is in itself un-American.

That must be because you are afraid to take a stand.

I'm not.

 

[PoliticalChic]

5. “Earlier this week, Obama-appointed Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan wrote in her minority dissent to the Janus ruling that the Court had “weaponized the First Amendment.”

The majority opinion dwelt on issues of compelled speech, noting that “because such compulsion so plainly violates the Constitution, most of our free speech cases have involved restrictions on what can be said, rather than laws compelling speech. But measures compelling speech are at least as threatening.”

Kagan, however, has other ideas and claimed in her dissent that

“The First Amendment was meant for better things,” she concluded.

Kagan’s fantastical notion of “black-robed rulers overriding citizens’ choices” by “weaponizing the First Amendment” is puzzling. Citizens in non-right-to-work states are completely free to join a union if they so wish, and in doing so, commit to paying union dues. The only change here is that unions can no longer extort dues from non-members in any state.

Citizens’ choices have not been overridden; indeed, citizen choice is expanded under this ruling. They can join a union or not join a union, those who do not join cannot be compelled to pay union dues, but they are also not barred from doing so if they wish.

Her point about “weaponizing the First Amendment” is equally confounding. The Founders intended the First Amendment to be a weapon . . . against government tyranny and oppression. They were insistent that freedom of speech was required to check government and to maintain a free and independent citizenry.” Who's afraid of the 1st Amendment?


A mainstream Democrat view?



One can only wonder if any greeting of Justice Kagan should include “Sieg Heil!”

Screw Kagan and the rest of the SCOTUS Mexicrats. (With a jackhammer)

Hoss.....we have to take back the schools.

 

[my2¢]

I have a Catch-22 view on this as I feel the thought of somebody taking it upon themselves to define who is American (or not) is in itself un-American.

That must be because you are afraid to take a stand.

I'm not.

I think it expresses my stand, I needn't create a list for anybody on what causes me to fell that way. If I did I'd start with your shamefully insulting many Democratic veterans and disrespecting those that died serving our country.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I have a Catch-22 view on this as I feel the thought of somebody taking it upon themselves to define who is American (or not) is in itself un-American.

That must be because you are afraid to take a stand.

I'm not.

I think it expresses my stand, I needn't create a list for anybody on what causes me to fell that way. If I did I'd start with your shamefully insulting many Democratic veterans and disrespecting those that died serving our country.

Nonsense.


Seems I embarrassed you.


Grow a pair.

 

[my2¢]

Embarrassed me. how so?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Embarrassed me. how so?

Let's cut to the chase.....

The premise is very simple: if you oppose free speech you are not an American as far as our memorializing documents.
It is the defining principle of Americanism.



If you have an argument in opposition to this premise, make it.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

…and be considered an American.


1. I base that on a number of things, such as these views becoming Democrat mainstream:

"Meet the New Democratic Socialists, Same as the Old Democratic Socialists!

...a message to the Democratic Establishment that the base of the party is moving decidedly more towards “Democratic socialism.” The only problem is that it seems nobody can get any specific answers on what this new “Democratic Socialism” actually is and how it differs from plain, run of the mill, failed socialism. Not even liberals can decide.

Abolish profit

Abolish prisons

Abolish cash bail

Abolish borders"
Meet the New Democratic Socialists, Same as the Old Democratic Socialists!


This is what you stand for when you vote Democrat.




2. But most important is the Democrat/Liberal anti-American war on free speech.

“Free speech as we’ve been chronicling here at LI for ages has come under heightened attack in recent years, particularly on our nation’s college campuses. We’ve seen poll after poll in which large swaths of young Americans (mostly, but not exclusively, leftists) believe that speech should be more restricted.

We’ve heard politicians argue that “hate speech” is not protected by the First Amendment, and we’ve seen Yale students organize a petition to repeal the First Amendment. We’ve heard that words are “violent,” and we’ve heard that “offensive,” “triggering,” and “hurtful” speech—speech someone in ear-shot hears and feels offended, triggered, or hurt by—should be unceremoniously restricted or even banned.” Who's afraid of the 1st Amendment?





3. We've been warned:

“Fascism may be so gradual in the United States that most voters will not be aware of its existence. The true Fascist leaders will not be present imitators of German Fuhrer and Italian condottieri, prancing in silver shirts. They will be judicious, black-frocked gentlemen; graduates of the best universities; disciples of Nicholas Murray Butler and Walter Lippmann.”
The 7-0-1 | National Review

Says the fake American.

THAT and another accurate statement would be -Says the Biased republican who ignores the corruption of the republicans.

 

[PoliticalChic]

…and be considered an American.


1. I base that on a number of things, such as these views becoming Democrat mainstream:

"Meet the New Democratic Socialists, Same as the Old Democratic Socialists!

...a message to the Democratic Establishment that the base of the party is moving decidedly more towards “Democratic socialism.” The only problem is that it seems nobody can get any specific answers on what this new “Democratic Socialism” actually is and how it differs from plain, run of the mill, failed socialism. Not even liberals can decide.

Abolish profit

Abolish prisons

Abolish cash bail

Abolish borders"
Meet the New Democratic Socialists, Same as the Old Democratic Socialists!


This is what you stand for when you vote Democrat.




2. But most important is the Democrat/Liberal anti-American war on free speech.

“Free speech as we’ve been chronicling here at LI for ages has come under heightened attack in recent years, particularly on our nation’s college campuses. We’ve seen poll after poll in which large swaths of young Americans (mostly, but not exclusively, leftists) believe that speech should be more restricted.

We’ve heard politicians argue that “hate speech” is not protected by the First Amendment, and we’ve seen Yale students organize a petition to repeal the First Amendment. We’ve heard that words are “violent,” and we’ve heard that “offensive,” “triggering,” and “hurtful” speech—speech someone in ear-shot hears and feels offended, triggered, or hurt by—should be unceremoniously restricted or even banned.” Who's afraid of the 1st Amendment?





3. We've been warned:

“Fascism may be so gradual in the United States that most voters will not be aware of its existence. The true Fascist leaders will not be present imitators of German Fuhrer and Italian condottieri, prancing in silver shirts. They will be judicious, black-frocked gentlemen; graduates of the best universities; disciples of Nicholas Murray Butler and Walter Lippmann.”
The 7-0-1 | National Review

Says the fake American.

THAT and another accurate statement would be -Says the Biased republican who ignores the corruption of the republicans.

Let's cut to the chase.....

The premise is very simple: if you oppose free speech you are not an American as far as our memorializing documents.
It is the defining principle of Americanism.



If you have an argument in opposition to this premise, make it.

 

[my2¢]

Embarrassed me. how so?

Let's cut to the chase.....

The premise is very simple: if you oppose free speech you are not an American as far as our memorializing documents.
It is the defining principle of Americanism.



If you have an argument in opposition to this premise, make it.

What I'm not buying into is your premise that Democrats have a monopoly on free speech restrictions.

Shockingly, a full 47 percent of Republicans support “punishing biased or inaccurate news media, even if that means limiting the freedom of the press,” versus just 34 percent who support “protecting freedom of the press, even if that means media outlets sometimes publish biased or inaccurate stories.” By contrast, 59 percent of Democrats said they prioritize protecting the freedom of the press, dwarfing the 19 percent who see it the other way.

Free Speech & Republicans: First Amendment Trumps Punishing Media | National Review​

 

[PoliticalChic]

Embarrassed me. how so?

Let's cut to the chase.....

The premise is very simple: if you oppose free speech you are not an American as far as our memorializing documents.
It is the defining principle of Americanism.



If you have an argument in opposition to this premise, make it.

What I'm not buying into is your premise that Democrats have a monopoly on free speech restrictions.

Shockingly, a full 47 percent of Republicans support “punishing biased or inaccurate news media, even if that means limiting the freedom of the press,” versus just 34 percent who support “protecting freedom of the press, even if that means media outlets sometimes publish biased or inaccurate stories.” By contrast, 59 percent of Democrats said they prioritize protecting the freedom of the press, dwarfing the 19 percent who see it the other way.Rw​

Plllleeeeeeezzzzzzz!!!!

Don't be silly.


Your library has a copy of this tome by a real Liberal.

I'd be more than happy to share my notes on the book.

 

[my2¢]

Embarrassed me. how so?

Let's cut to the chase.....

The premise is very simple: if you oppose free speech you are not an American as far as our memorializing documents.
It is the defining principle of Americanism.



If you have an argument in opposition to this premise, make it.

What I'm not buying into is your premise that Democrats have a monopoly on free speech restrictions.

Shockingly, a full 47 percent of Republicans support “punishing biased or inaccurate news media, even if that means limiting the freedom of the press,” versus just 34 percent who support “protecting freedom of the press, even if that means media outlets sometimes publish biased or inaccurate stories.” By contrast, 59 percent of Democrats said they prioritize protecting the freedom of the press, dwarfing the 19 percent who see it the other way.Rw​

Plllleeeeeeezzzzzzz!!!!

Don't be silly.


Your library has a copy of this tome by a real Liberal.

I'd be more than happy to share my notes on the book.

No need. With information freely available ranging from the Alt-Right to the Antifa these days, one has to be dense not the recognize the explosion of free speech these last 20 years. Thus I limit any association with the whiners, they may be into child porn.

 

[Borillar]

…and be considered an American.


1. I base that on a number of things, such as these views becoming Democrat mainstream:

"Meet the New Democratic Socialists, Same as the Old Democratic Socialists!

...a message to the Democratic Establishment that the base of the party is moving decidedly more towards “Democratic socialism.” The only problem is that it seems nobody can get any specific answers on what this new “Democratic Socialism” actually is and how it differs from plain, run of the mill, failed socialism. Not even liberals can decide.

Abolish profit

Abolish prisons

Abolish cash bail

Abolish borders"
Meet the New Democratic Socialists, Same as the Old Democratic Socialists!


This is what you stand for when you vote Democrat.




2. But most important is the Democrat/Liberal anti-American war on free speech.

“Free speech as we’ve been chronicling here at LI for ages has come under heightened attack in recent years, particularly on our nation’s college campuses. We’ve seen poll after poll in which large swaths of young Americans (mostly, but not exclusively, leftists) believe that speech should be more restricted.

We’ve heard politicians argue that “hate speech” is not protected by the First Amendment, and we’ve seen Yale students organize a petition to repeal the First Amendment. We’ve heard that words are “violent,” and we’ve heard that “offensive,” “triggering,” and “hurtful” speech—speech someone in ear-shot hears and feels offended, triggered, or hurt by—should be unceremoniously restricted or even banned.” Who's afraid of the 1st Amendment?





3. We've been warned:

“Fascism may be so gradual in the United States that most voters will not be aware of its existence. The true Fascist leaders will not be present imitators of German Fuhrer and Italian condottieri, prancing in silver shirts. They will be judicious, black-frocked gentlemen; graduates of the best universities; disciples of Nicholas Murray Butler and Walter Lippmann.”
The 7-0-1 | National Review

1) I'm guessing nordic countries are failing. Denmark best country for business.

2) Who is waging war on first amendment?

3) Trump is already early-stage Mussolini

What a truly stupid post.

You must vote Democrat, huh?

You cant backup your posts? Only insults?

That's her M.O. She's the queen of cut and paste from questionable sources. She puts up these wall of text posts and if anyone challenges any point of it, she comes out with the personal attacks.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Embarrassed me. how so?

Let's cut to the chase.....

The premise is very simple: if you oppose free speech you are not an American as far as our memorializing documents.
It is the defining principle of Americanism.



If you have an argument in opposition to this premise, make it.

What I'm not buying into is your premise that Democrats have a monopoly on free speech restrictions.

Shockingly, a full 47 percent of Republicans support “punishing biased or inaccurate news media, even if that means limiting the freedom of the press,” versus just 34 percent who support “protecting freedom of the press, even if that means media outlets sometimes publish biased or inaccurate stories.” By contrast, 59 percent of Democrats said they prioritize protecting the freedom of the press, dwarfing the 19 percent who see it the other way.Rw​

Plllleeeeeeezzzzzzz!!!!

Don't be silly.


Your library has a copy of this tome by a real Liberal.

I'd be more than happy to share my notes on the book.

No need. With information freely available ranging from the Alt-Right to the Antifa these days, one has to be dense not the recognize the explosion of free speech these last 20 years. Thus I limit any association with the whiners, they may be into child porn.

"No need" what....to read a book???


Telling.


Now....back on the topic of support of free speech as the Litmus Test of Americanism....




6. “ [Democrat] Kagan’s dissenting opinion, however, appears to be the impetus needed for the anti-First Amendment left to reveal themselves on their disdain for Americans’ freedom of speech.

The New York Times, for example, published a bizarre piece entitled, “How Conservatives Weaponized the First Amendment.” In it, they argue that freedom of speech, in general, and the First Amendment, in particular, are dangerous because speech is a (you guessed it) “weapon” wielded by conservatives against the assorted and isolated identity groups on which Democrats rely.

“When I was younger, I had more of the standard liberal view of civil liberties,” said Louis Michael Seidman, a law professor at Georgetown. “And I’ve gradually changed my mind about it. What I have come to see is that it’s a mistake to think of free speech as an effective means to accomplish a more just society.”

[WHAT???????]

To the contrary, free speech reinforces and amplifies injustice, Catharine A. MacKinnon, a law professor at the University of Michigan, wrote in “The Free Speech Century,” a collection of essays to be published this year.

“Once a defense of the powerless, the First Amendment over the last hundred years has mainly become a weapon of the powerful,” she wrote. “Legally, what was, toward the beginning of the 20th century, a shield for radicals, artists and activists, socialists and pacifists, the excluded and the dispossessed, has become a sword for authoritarians, racists and minsogynists, Nazis and Klansmen, pornographers and corporations buying elections.”

Two things stand out: the left’s focus on a “just society,” and the pretense that the First Amendment wasn’t put in place to protect unpopular speech. We don’t need a Constitutional amendment to protect popular, politically- and socioculturally-correct viewpoints, and justice is only justice when it’s not co-opted and redefined in a narrow and therefore unavoidably unjust way.”
Who's afraid of the 1st Amendment?





Justice Kagan needs to be impeached.

Those ‘law school professors’ need to be fired ….and exiled, a la Philip Nolan.