The Democrat War Against Free Speech

[Kosh]

You wrote: "The OP also brought up flag desecration - which is Free Speech,..."


That was a lie, wasn't it.

QED...you are a liar.

If you don't believe that flag burning is Protected Free Speech, then you nothing of either.

"The flag of the United States is sometimes symbolically burned, often in protest of the policies of the American government, both within the country and abroad. The United States Supreme Court in Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989), and reaffirmed in U.S. v. Eichman, 496 U.S. 310 (1990), has ruled that due to the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, it is unconstitutional for a government (whether federal, state, or municipality) to prohibit the desecration of a flag, due to its status as "symbolic speech." However, content-neutral restrictions may still be imposed to regulate the time, place, and manner of such expression.

In 1862, during the Union army's occupation of New Orleans in the American Civil War, the military governor, Benjamin Franklin Butler, sentenced William B. Mumford to death for removing an American flag. In 1864 John Greenleaf Whittier wrote the poem Barbara Frietchie, which told of a (probably fictional) incident in which Confederate soldiers were deterred from defacing an American flag. The poem contains the famous lines:

"Shoot, if you must, this old gray head,
But spare your country's flag," she said.

During the United States involvement in the Vietnam War American flags were sometimes burned during war protest demonstrations.[79]

After the Johnson and Eichman decisions, several flag burning amendments to the Constitution were proposed. On June 22, 2005, a Flag Desecration Amendment was passed by the House with the needed two-thirds majority. On June 27, 2006, another attempt to pass a ban on flag burning was rejected by the Senate in a close vote of 66 in favor, 34 opposed, one vote short of the two-thirds majority needed to send the amendment to be voted on by the states.[80]"
Flag desecration - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

I've made no statement about flag burning in this thread.

But your attempt to shift the thread is one more proof of the fear you have of the truth: Democrats fear and hate free speech.

So you DO want to pick and choose that which entails Free Speech.

Even though you said there was "no wiggle room" about laws made to prohibit it.

Your discussion is about only "certain forms" of Free Speech if you deny you brought it up-- which pretty much nukes your whole OP.

Admit you lied.

I demand nothing less than penitential prostration.

Then I shall consider forgiving you.

Prostrate this, bitch.

You don't get to pick and chose that which entails Free Speech just because it doesn't suit your argument.

Sound like what the far left drones do on this board and in this thread..

 

[Moonglow]

You're desperately avoiding the OP's claim. Is she right or wrong? She's claiming that what you call our job to protect children is unconstitutional if it in any way whatsoever violates the literal text of the 1st Amendment.

Why are you arguing with me instead of her?

You and your fellow democrats are at war to crush civil rights. Already speech that you find offensive against blacks, homosexuals, Muslim Terrorist, or whatever other favored group of the party, is openly criminalized. Obama has engaged in a prolonged attack on Christians, requiring two slap downs by the SCOTUS to reign in his criminal and unconstitutional behavior.

The fascist democrats are engaged in a war on civil rights and the Constitution in general. You seek an authoritarian state, ruled from Washington by a cult of personality.

Yes those poor oppressed Christians, are they still feeding them to the lions?

 

[NYcarbineer]

She came back to accuse me of lying about her position.

Yeah, I just saw that.

For some reason my browser was stuck on page one (first 50 posts)

At least I was able to get bi-partisan support for her being wrong. I'm today's Miracle Worker.

Wrong as always! but you far left drones should be used to that..

Sorry, jknowgood agreed with me on the point that she was wrong to strongly imply that child porn laws were unconstitutional.

No that is the way you read it. Because of the far left narrative you run on..

As you were the only one to bring up child porn..

The OP brought up child porn because it would be included in 1st Amendment issues.

I said this:

The Democrat War Against Free Speech US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Where on earth in that do you find my support for child porn?

"The OP brought up child porn..."

No, I didn't.

So that's why you're known as the "NYLiar"??

"Every law, regulation, order, mandate, code, dictum, ordinance, should be held up to the specific language "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech,..."

Those are your words. Now explain to us how the word 'every' excludes child porn.

Can't wait to hear this.

 

[PoliticalChic]

You wrote: "The OP also brought up flag desecration - which is Free Speech,..."


That was a lie, wasn't it.

QED...you are a liar.

If you don't believe that flag burning is Protected Free Speech, then you nothing of either.

"The flag of the United States is sometimes symbolically burned, often in protest of the policies of the American government, both within the country and abroad. The United States Supreme Court in Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989), and reaffirmed in U.S. v. Eichman, 496 U.S. 310 (1990), has ruled that due to the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, it is unconstitutional for a government (whether federal, state, or municipality) to prohibit the desecration of a flag, due to its status as "symbolic speech." However, content-neutral restrictions may still be imposed to regulate the time, place, and manner of such expression.

In 1862, during the Union army's occupation of New Orleans in the American Civil War, the military governor, Benjamin Franklin Butler, sentenced William B. Mumford to death for removing an American flag. In 1864 John Greenleaf Whittier wrote the poem Barbara Frietchie, which told of a (probably fictional) incident in which Confederate soldiers were deterred from defacing an American flag. The poem contains the famous lines:

"Shoot, if you must, this old gray head,
But spare your country's flag," she said.

During the United States involvement in the Vietnam War American flags were sometimes burned during war protest demonstrations.[79]

After the Johnson and Eichman decisions, several flag burning amendments to the Constitution were proposed. On June 22, 2005, a Flag Desecration Amendment was passed by the House with the needed two-thirds majority. On June 27, 2006, another attempt to pass a ban on flag burning was rejected by the Senate in a close vote of 66 in favor, 34 opposed, one vote short of the two-thirds majority needed to send the amendment to be voted on by the states.[80]"
Flag desecration - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

I've made no statement about flag burning in this thread.

But your attempt to shift the thread is one more proof of the fear you have of the truth: Democrats fear and hate free speech.

So you DO want to pick and choose that which entails Free Speech.

Even though you said there was "no wiggle room" about laws made to prohibit it.

Your discussion is about only "certain forms" of Free Speech if you deny you brought it up-- which pretty much nukes your whole OP.

Admit you lied.

I demand nothing less than penitential prostration.

Then I shall consider forgiving you.

Prostrate this, bitch.

You don't get to pick and chose that which entails Free Speech just because it doesn't suit your argument.

1. "The OP also brought up flag desecration - which is Free Speech,..."
I never did that, did I.

So....I caught you lying, and called you on it.


2. The bonus: I've enraged you!

Time and again, when folks realize they have been skewered, their language falls to the vulgar. It's one of those hard to hide psychological tells....your anger at being bested leaks out as vulgarity.

Yes...that's me laughing at you.

 

[Kosh]

Just wondering.....which of her best sellers have you read?

You mean the toxic wench who said her only problem with a terrorist is that he didn't blow up the New York Times building?

Or do you prefer only problem with a terrorist is that he didn't blow up Fox News?

No, only a crazed loon would say something like. Nutcake Coulter obviously has a problem with First Amendment.

This is gilding the lily, but let me point out what a stupid post yours is....

Coulter has penned some dozen best sellers that make the Left apoplectic.....speech is her 'sword' and that's what you Leftists hate.

See how stupid this sounds:"Nutcake Coulter obviously has a problem with First Amendment."

The far left narrative you ran on when you blazed into thread. and also showing that you are upset that child porn in illegal..

Again, quote me where I said any such thing. Quote me where I implied any such thing.

In your first post on this thread..

Do you drones not remember what you post or do you just run the narrative?

Again

The Democrat War Against Free Speech US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Can you not read what is said there? Can you not understand it? Can you not see that the OP is implying that the 1st Amendment protects child porn if applied in the manner she advocates?

" Can you not see that the OP is implying...."

Ohhhhh,,,,,,,so you were lying when you said I 'brought up child porn...'


So....are you ready to change your avi to "NYLiar"?

Child pornography and its legality are not a 1st Amendment issue? You brought up ALL 1st amendment issues.

In New York v. Ferber,1132 the Court recognized another category of expression that is outside the coverage of the First Amendment, the pictorial representation of children in films or still photographs in a variety of sexual activities or exposures of the genitals. The basic reason such depictions could be prohibited was the governmental interest in protecting the physical and psychological well-being of children whose participation in the production of these materials would subject them to exploitation and harm. The state may go beyond a mere prohibition on the use of the children, because it is not possible to protect children adequately without prohibiting the exhibition and dissemination of the materials and advertising about them. Thus, “the evil to be restricted so overwhelmingly outweighs the expressive interests, if any, at stake, that no process of case-by-case adjudication is required.”1133 But, since expression is involved, government must carefully define what conduct is to be prohibited and may reach only “works that visually depict sexual conduct by children below a specified age.”1134

That ruling conflicts directly with the stand you took in the OP, your 'no wiggle room' stand:

as you said:

"Every law, regulation, order, mandate, code, dictum, ordinance, should be held up to the specific language "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech,..."

Care to admit you were wrong, or would you like to dig yourself in deeper?

And the OP never brought this subject up, a certain far left drone did..

 

[Impenitent]

What we're talking about is the right oh the Waltons and the Kochs t to buy favorable candidates and legislation.with unlimited campaign contributions.

Because, using a strict interpretation of the Constitution, we know our founders assumed that money is speech.

"...the Waltons and the Kochs t to buy favorable candidates and legislation.with unlimited campaign contributions."

No....we're talking about the Leftists using the courts to restrict the speech guaranteed by the Constitution.

Coulter:

1. If liberals could trust the voters, they wouldn’t need the Court to invent ludicrous ‘constitutional rights’ for them in the first place.
2. The only limit on liberal insanity in this country is how many issues liberals can get before a court…A lot is at stake for liberals with the court. If they lose a liberal vote, they will be forced t fight political battles through a messy little system know as ‘democracy.’
3. When conservative judges strike down laws, it’s because of what’s in the Constitution. When liberal judges strike down laws (or impose new laws, such as tax increases), it’s because of what’s in the New York Times.

Quoting Coulter is a bit off topic, beside, she has a history of being vague on election law. She's just trying to sell books... To vapid goose-steppers such as yourself.

Talk about campaign finance, that's what your stolen op is about.

It takes a certain sort of imbecile, basically a weak-kneed one, to try to complain about the source of a truth rather than confront the truth itself.

Recognize yourself in this statement?
Good.

Newt Gingrich, who was only in the. presidential race to sell books, became a major player with Sherman Adelson's "free speech" contribution. See how that works? Do you like it? Ann Coulter probably would. Thomas Jefferson? Probably not.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Just wondering.....which of her best sellers have you read?

You mean the toxic wench who said her only problem with a terrorist is that he didn't blow up the New York Times building?

Or do you prefer only problem with a terrorist is that he didn't blow up Fox News?

No, only a crazed loon would say something like. Nutcake Coulter obviously has a problem with First Amendment.

This is gilding the lily, but let me point out what a stupid post yours is....

Coulter has penned some dozen best sellers that make the Left apoplectic.....speech is her 'sword' and that's what you Leftists hate.

See how stupid this sounds:"Nutcake Coulter obviously has a problem with First Amendment."

The far left narrative you ran on when you blazed into thread. and also showing that you are upset that child porn in illegal..

Again, quote me where I said any such thing. Quote me where I implied any such thing.

In your first post on this thread..

Do you drones not remember what you post or do you just run the narrative?

Again

The Democrat War Against Free Speech US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Can you not read what is said there? Can you not understand it? Can you not see that the OP is implying that the 1st Amendment protects child porn if applied in the manner she advocates?

" Can you not see that the OP is implying...."

Ohhhhh,,,,,,,so you were lying when you said I 'brought up child porn...'


So....are you ready to change your avi to "NYLiar"?

Child pornography and its legality are not a 1st Amendment issue? You brought up ALL 1st amendment issues.

In New York v. Ferber,1132 the Court recognized another category of expression that is outside the coverage of the First Amendment, the pictorial representation of children in films or still photographs in a variety of sexual activities or exposures of the genitals. The basic reason such depictions could be prohibited was the governmental interest in protecting the physical and psychological well-being of children whose participation in the production of these materials would subject them to exploitation and harm. The state may go beyond a mere prohibition on the use of the children, because it is not possible to protect children adequately without prohibiting the exhibition and dissemination of the materials and advertising about them. Thus, “the evil to be restricted so overwhelmingly outweighs the expressive interests, if any, at stake, that no process of case-by-case adjudication is required.”1133 But, since expression is involved, government must carefully define what conduct is to be prohibited and may reach only “works that visually depict sexual conduct by children below a specified age.”1134

That ruling conflicts directly with the stand you took in the OP, your 'no wiggle room' stand:

as you said:

"Every law, regulation, order, mandate, code, dictum, ordinance, should be held up to the specific language "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech,..."

Care to admit you were wrong, or would you like to dig yourself in deeper?

You can run, but you can't hide.

You are simply a boiler-plate liar.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Yes those poor oppressed Christians, are they still feeding them to the lions?

God, I wish, and covering them in pitch and using them as human torches. Those Romans knew how to throw a party eh?

 

[Moonglow]

You mean the toxic wench who said her only problem with a terrorist is that he didn't blow up the New York Times building?

Or do you prefer only problem with a terrorist is that he didn't blow up Fox News?

No, only a crazed loon would say something like. Nutcake Coulter obviously has a problem with First Amendment.

This is gilding the lily, but let me point out what a stupid post yours is....

Coulter has penned some dozen best sellers that make the Left apoplectic.....speech is her 'sword' and that's what you Leftists hate.

See how stupid this sounds:"Nutcake Coulter obviously has a problem with First Amendment."

Again, quote me where I said any such thing. Quote me where I implied any such thing.

In your first post on this thread..

Do you drones not remember what you post or do you just run the narrative?

Again

The Democrat War Against Free Speech US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Can you not read what is said there? Can you not understand it? Can you not see that the OP is implying that the 1st Amendment protects child porn if applied in the manner she advocates?

" Can you not see that the OP is implying...."

Ohhhhh,,,,,,,so you were lying when you said I 'brought up child porn...'


So....are you ready to change your avi to "NYLiar"?

Child pornography and its legality are not a 1st Amendment issue? You brought up ALL 1st amendment issues.

In New York v. Ferber,1132 the Court recognized another category of expression that is outside the coverage of the First Amendment, the pictorial representation of children in films or still photographs in a variety of sexual activities or exposures of the genitals. The basic reason such depictions could be prohibited was the governmental interest in protecting the physical and psychological well-being of children whose participation in the production of these materials would subject them to exploitation and harm. The state may go beyond a mere prohibition on the use of the children, because it is not possible to protect children adequately without prohibiting the exhibition and dissemination of the materials and advertising about them. Thus, “the evil to be restricted so overwhelmingly outweighs the expressive interests, if any, at stake, that no process of case-by-case adjudication is required.”1133 But, since expression is involved, government must carefully define what conduct is to be prohibited and may reach only “works that visually depict sexual conduct by children below a specified age.”1134

That ruling conflicts directly with the stand you took in the OP, your 'no wiggle room' stand:

as you said:

"Every law, regulation, order, mandate, code, dictum, ordinance, should be held up to the specific language "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech,..."

Care to admit you were wrong, or would you like to dig yourself in deeper?

And the OP never brought this subject up, a certain far left drone did..

What are you a magpie??

 

[Kosh]

Yeah, I just saw that.

For some reason my browser was stuck on page one (first 50 posts)

Wrong as always! but you far left drones should be used to that..

Sorry, jknowgood agreed with me on the point that she was wrong to strongly imply that child porn laws were unconstitutional.

No that is the way you read it. Because of the far left narrative you run on..

As you were the only one to bring up child porn..

The OP brought up child porn because it would be included in 1st Amendment issues.

I said this:

The Democrat War Against Free Speech US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Where on earth in that do you find my support for child porn?

"The OP brought up child porn..."

No, I didn't.

So that's why you're known as the "NYLiar"??

"Every law, regulation, order, mandate, code, dictum, ordinance, should be held up to the specific language "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech,..."

Those are your words. Now explain to us how the word 'every' excludes child porn.

Can't wait to hear this.

And this far left drone proves that they do not understand or even know what the Constitution is..

Why are you so obsessed with child porn?

 

[NYcarbineer]

If you don't believe that flag burning is Protected Free Speech, then you nothing of either.

"The flag of the United States is sometimes symbolically burned, often in protest of the policies of the American government, both within the country and abroad. The United States Supreme Court in Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989), and reaffirmed in U.S. v. Eichman, 496 U.S. 310 (1990), has ruled that due to the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, it is unconstitutional for a government (whether federal, state, or municipality) to prohibit the desecration of a flag, due to its status as "symbolic speech." However, content-neutral restrictions may still be imposed to regulate the time, place, and manner of such expression.

In 1862, during the Union army's occupation of New Orleans in the American Civil War, the military governor, Benjamin Franklin Butler, sentenced William B. Mumford to death for removing an American flag. In 1864 John Greenleaf Whittier wrote the poem Barbara Frietchie, which told of a (probably fictional) incident in which Confederate soldiers were deterred from defacing an American flag. The poem contains the famous lines:

"Shoot, if you must, this old gray head,
But spare your country's flag," she said.

During the United States involvement in the Vietnam War American flags were sometimes burned during war protest demonstrations.[79]

After the Johnson and Eichman decisions, several flag burning amendments to the Constitution were proposed. On June 22, 2005, a Flag Desecration Amendment was passed by the House with the needed two-thirds majority. On June 27, 2006, another attempt to pass a ban on flag burning was rejected by the Senate in a close vote of 66 in favor, 34 opposed, one vote short of the two-thirds majority needed to send the amendment to be voted on by the states.[80]"
Flag desecration - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

I've made no statement about flag burning in this thread.

But your attempt to shift the thread is one more proof of the fear you have of the truth: Democrats fear and hate free speech.

So you DO want to pick and choose that which entails Free Speech.

Even though you said there was "no wiggle room" about laws made to prohibit it.

Your discussion is about only "certain forms" of Free Speech if you deny you brought it up-- which pretty much nukes your whole OP.

Admit you lied.

I demand nothing less than penitential prostration.

Then I shall consider forgiving you.

Prostrate this, bitch.

You don't get to pick and chose that which entails Free Speech just because it doesn't suit your argument.

1. "The OP also brought up flag desecration - which is Free Speech,..."
I never did that, did I.

So....I caught you lying, and called you on it.


2. The bonus: I've enraged you!

Time and again, when folks realize they have been skewered, their language falls to the vulgar. It's one of those hard to hide psychological tells....your anger at being bested leaks out as vulgarity.

Yes...that's me laughing at you.

You included EVERY law. That includes laws regarding flag desecration.

It's hilarious that we're proving you to be more interested in restrictions on free speech than those you accused.

lol

 

[PoliticalChic]

What we're talking about is the right oh the Waltons and the Kochs t to buy favorable candidates and legislation.with unlimited campaign contributions.

Because, using a strict interpretation of the Constitution, we know our founders assumed that money is speech.

"...the Waltons and the Kochs t to buy favorable candidates and legislation.with unlimited campaign contributions."

No....we're talking about the Leftists using the courts to restrict the speech guaranteed by the Constitution.

Coulter:

1. If liberals could trust the voters, they wouldn’t need the Court to invent ludicrous ‘constitutional rights’ for them in the first place.
2. The only limit on liberal insanity in this country is how many issues liberals can get before a court…A lot is at stake for liberals with the court. If they lose a liberal vote, they will be forced t fight political battles through a messy little system know as ‘democracy.’
3. When conservative judges strike down laws, it’s because of what’s in the Constitution. When liberal judges strike down laws (or impose new laws, such as tax increases), it’s because of what’s in the New York Times.

Quoting Coulter is a bit off topic, beside, she has a history of being vague on election law. She's just trying to sell books... To vapid goose-steppers such as yourself.

Talk about campaign finance, that's what your stolen op is about.

It takes a certain sort of imbecile, basically a weak-kneed one, to try to complain about the source of a truth rather than confront the truth itself.

Recognize yourself in this statement?
Good.

Newt Gingrich, who was only in the. presidential race to sell books, became a major player with Sherman Adelson's "free speech" contribution. See how that works? Do you like it? Ann Coulter probably would. Thomas Jefferson? Probably not.

What?

Change the subject?

No better sign of defeat is possible.

 

[Moonglow]

Yes those poor oppressed Christians, are they still feeding them to the lions?

God, I wish, and covering them in pitch and using them as human torches. Those Romans knew how to throw a party eh?

Yeah, except for the butt screwing....

 

[NYcarbineer]

Sorry, jknowgood agreed with me on the point that she was wrong to strongly imply that child porn laws were unconstitutional.

No that is the way you read it. Because of the far left narrative you run on..

As you were the only one to bring up child porn..

The OP brought up child porn because it would be included in 1st Amendment issues.

I said this:

The Democrat War Against Free Speech US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Where on earth in that do you find my support for child porn?

"The OP brought up child porn..."

No, I didn't.

So that's why you're known as the "NYLiar"??

"Every law, regulation, order, mandate, code, dictum, ordinance, should be held up to the specific language "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech,..."

Those are your words. Now explain to us how the word 'every' excludes child porn.

Can't wait to hear this.

And this far left drone proves that they do not understand or even know what the Constitution is..

Why are you so obsessed with child porn?

Why are you agreeing with the OP that child porn should be Free Speech?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Sorry, jknowgood agreed with me on the point that she was wrong to strongly imply that child porn laws were unconstitutional.

No that is the way you read it. Because of the far left narrative you run on..

As you were the only one to bring up child porn..

The OP brought up child porn because it would be included in 1st Amendment issues.

I said this:

The Democrat War Against Free Speech US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Where on earth in that do you find my support for child porn?

"The OP brought up child porn..."

No, I didn't.

So that's why you're known as the "NYLiar"??

"Every law, regulation, order, mandate, code, dictum, ordinance, should be held up to the specific language "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech,..."

Those are your words. Now explain to us how the word 'every' excludes child porn.

Can't wait to hear this.

And this far left drone proves that they do not understand or even know what the Constitution is..

Why are you so obsessed with child porn?

He isn't, and why can't you answer why it should be illegal? Where's the "no law" part of the OP?

 

[Kosh]

This is gilding the lily, but let me point out what a stupid post yours is....

Coulter has penned some dozen best sellers that make the Left apoplectic.....speech is her 'sword' and that's what you Leftists hate.

See how stupid this sounds:"Nutcake Coulter obviously has a problem with First Amendment."

Coulter, unlike PC, is very bright and has used her abilities to write to convince the far right to buy her books. She has created a niche for herself by writing what the far right wants to hear, taking demagoguery to the next level and herself to the bank.

"Coulter, unlike PC, is very bright and has used her abilities to write to convince the far right to buy her books...."


"Liberals don't read books – they don't read anything … That's why they're liberals. They watch TV, absorb the propaganda, and vote on the basis of urges."
Coulter

Ah yes, a great broad spectrum statement for the intelligentsia meme foundation...

Evidence necessary?

The Libs voted for a proven failure in both domestic and foreign policy attempts.....TWICE!!!

We are doing better than the second term of Bush.....but for a pessimistic Darwin socialist, you'll never see the forest for the trees...

No that is not true, but I am sure the far left will agree with you..

With close to 40% of the labor force out of work might disagree with you..

 

[Kosh]

No that is the way you read it. Because of the far left narrative you run on..

As you were the only one to bring up child porn..

The OP brought up child porn because it would be included in 1st Amendment issues.

I said this:

The Democrat War Against Free Speech US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Where on earth in that do you find my support for child porn?

"The OP brought up child porn..."

No, I didn't.

So that's why you're known as the "NYLiar"??

"Every law, regulation, order, mandate, code, dictum, ordinance, should be held up to the specific language "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech,..."

Those are your words. Now explain to us how the word 'every' excludes child porn.

Can't wait to hear this.

And this far left drone proves that they do not understand or even know what the Constitution is..

Why are you so obsessed with child porn?

Why are you agreeing with the OP that child porn should be Free Speech?

No I am agreeing you are obsessed about child porn and that you were the one that brought the subject up..

 

[Moonglow]

Coulter, unlike PC, is very bright and has used her abilities to write to convince the far right to buy her books. She has created a niche for herself by writing what the far right wants to hear, taking demagoguery to the next level and herself to the bank.

"Coulter, unlike PC, is very bright and has used her abilities to write to convince the far right to buy her books...."


"Liberals don't read books – they don't read anything … That's why they're liberals. They watch TV, absorb the propaganda, and vote on the basis of urges."
Coulter

Ah yes, a great broad spectrum statement for the intelligentsia meme foundation...

Evidence necessary?

The Libs voted for a proven failure in both domestic and foreign policy attempts.....TWICE!!!

We are doing better than the second term of Bush.....but for a pessimistic Darwin socialist, you'll never see the forest for the trees...

No that is not true, but I am sure the far left will agree with you..

With close to 40% of the labor force out of work might disagree with you..

If they wanted a job, they'd have a job....

 

[NYcarbineer]

No that is the way you read it. Because of the far left narrative you run on..

As you were the only one to bring up child porn..

The OP brought up child porn because it would be included in 1st Amendment issues.

I said this:

The Democrat War Against Free Speech US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Where on earth in that do you find my support for child porn?

"The OP brought up child porn..."

No, I didn't.

So that's why you're known as the "NYLiar"??

"Every law, regulation, order, mandate, code, dictum, ordinance, should be held up to the specific language "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech,..."

Those are your words. Now explain to us how the word 'every' excludes child porn.

Can't wait to hear this.

And this far left drone proves that they do not understand or even know what the Constitution is..

Why are you so obsessed with child porn?

He isn't, and why can't you answer why it should be illegal? Where's the "no law" part of the OP?

He blindly agreed with the OP when she implied child porn ought to be protected by the 1st Amendment and he doesn't even know he did.

 

[Camp]

Despite the nut job fantasies and conspiracy theories, free speech is not under attack. Nothing has changed to make us afraid of having our free speech taken away. It has always been against the law to misuse speech in a way that causes unjust harm or puts peoples safety at risk. If you tell lies about a business or person and it causes them harm you will not be able to use a free speech defense. If you use speech to cause a prank or crime, you can not use free speech as a defense or excuse. Free speech can not be used as an excuse to break laws. Walking into a bank and telling the teller you would like to have some money is not protected free speech.