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.
So you are upset that child porn is illegal!
The electoral college had nothing to do with who was president after the 2000 elections...Not 'just a few laws'....or 'shouldn't abridge'.....because the Founders had no intention of forming a government based on 'whatever government says, goes.'
And george Washington turned around and said, let there be a whickey tax...
Wow I thought we were only here since 1776.. 2000 elections = 8,000 years...The popular vote means as much as the amount of time an American football team controls the ball. It's a fun statistic, but meaningless when compared to the number of points scored.
It's not. The EC was a product of compromise, it strongly suggests the will of the people in the aggregate. The EC is obsolete and should be repealed.
Notice how the far left drones want the Electoral College repealed after the 2000 elections..
Not according to the far left their history on that starts at the year 2000..
You also showed that you do not understand the history of the US..
Coulter is a comedian, but you guys don't get the joke. And she was right about Romney. You ran him and you lost.That's because she uses Ann Coulter as a bench mark...
Ann Coulter is extremely smart, and extremely funny.
You? Not so much....
We would have run people far worse than Romney, and there were plenty of them.
So you are upset that child porn is illegal!
Well well well, considering the recent thread about Huckabee equating gay sex to drinking and stealing, I guess we have a claim here that liberals support child pornography because of the way they worded a statement about free speech, huh?
I never read her. It's unnecessary since all her books are the same cut and paste.Coulter is a comedian, but you guys don't get the joke. And she was right about Romney. You ran him and you lost.That's because she uses Ann Coulter as a bench mark...
Ann Coulter is extremely smart, and extremely funny.
You? Not so much....
Which of her dozen or so best sellers did you like best?
Least?
....of the ones you've read, of course.
How can it not mean that?
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.[1]
How do you get from 'no law' to being able to make some laws without the 'wiggle room' that PC insists must not exist?
Twice I have provided you with a comprehensive link to all the applicable SCOTUS decisions, with the actual text and reasoning of the justices in the rulings. Again you fail to bother reading what is handed to you on a silver platter, instead spewing idiocy.
But whatchagunnado?
Does "best selling" equal quality?Coulter is a comedian, but you guys don't get the joke. And she was right about Romney. You ran him and you lost.That's because she uses Ann Coulter as a bench mark...
Ann Coulter is extremely smart, and extremely funny.
You? Not so much....
Which of her dozen or so best sellers did you like best?
Least?
....of the ones you've read, of course.
You've yet to tell us why it should be illegal? If there are "no laws" allowed, as the OP states, then why is some free speech illegal?So you are upset that child porn is illegal!
Well well well, considering the recent thread about Huckabee equating gay sex to drinking and stealing, I guess we have a claim here that liberals support child pornography because of the way they worded a statement about free speech, huh?
No! Just showing that one far left drone is obsessed with it being illegal..
No the outcome of the election ...The electoral college had nothing to do with who was president after the 2000 elections...Not 'just a few laws'....or 'shouldn't abridge'.....because the Founders had no intention of forming a government based on 'whatever government says, goes.'
And george Washington turned around and said, let there be a whickey tax...
Wow I thought we were only here since 1776.. 2000 elections = 8,000 years...It's not. The EC was a product of compromise, it strongly suggests the will of the people in the aggregate. The EC is obsolete and should be repealed.
Notice how the far left drones want the Electoral College repealed after the 2000 elections..
Not according to the far left their history on that starts at the year 2000..
You also showed that you do not understand the history of the US..
You're referring to the number of ballots cast for the Republican, right?
I would have run Palin, and enjoyed watching Obama destroy her.We would have run people far worse than Romney, and there were plenty of them.
Romney did what you wanted him to do - he lost. There weren't many who could have lost to Obama in 2012. My Dingo would have easily beaten him.
7. OK....so....is the right of free speech an absolute, as suggested in "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech,..."
No.
.
No the outcome of the election ...The electoral college had nothing to do with who was president after the 2000 elections...Not 'just a few laws'....or 'shouldn't abridge'.....because the Founders had no intention of forming a government based on 'whatever government says, goes.'
And george Washington turned around and said, let there be a whickey tax...
Wow I thought we were only here since 1776.. 2000 elections = 8,000 years...Notice how the far left drones want the Electoral College repealed after the 2000 elections..
Not according to the far left their history on that starts at the year 2000..
You also showed that you do not understand the history of the US..
You're referring to the number of ballots cast for the Republican, right?
There's always a scapegoat, isn't there? Why didn't the far right candidates do as well as Romney in the primaries? Because they titillated the GOP rabid base while frightening the GOP majority. So, the rabid GOP base, constantly looking for someone else to blame, fell back on their favorite scapegoat: The Left.
7. OK....so....is the right of free speech an absolute, as suggested in "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech,..."
No.
.
FINALLY, she retracts her previous insistence and thus admits she was wrong.
Whew, I should have been a dentist.
The famous book-burners of all time were the left wing Nazis party.Republicans are book burners. The only free speech they want it hate speech.1. Our first lesson today involves the nexus of grammar and of civics. The lesson goes beyond syntax, the arrangement of words and phrases to create well-formed sentences in a language, and centers on why, out of all the choices, particular words are used.
Begin with alpha and omega of America, the Constitution, and, perhaps, the best know portion of the Constitution, the first amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
First Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia
And focus like a laser on this phrase: "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech,..."
No wiggle room there...'no law.'
Not 'just a few laws'....or 'shouldn't abridge'.....because the Founders had no intention of forming a government based on 'whatever government says, goes.'
2. OK...here is the problem. An argument can be made that there are certain acceptable limits.... Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. pretty much nailed it with the 'no shouting fire' comment.
But.... once the camel has his nose under the tent, human being do what they do best: rationalize. They make reasonable arguments increasing, more and more, the things government won't/shouldn't allow to be said.
a. Kind of like the apocryphal example of the frog in cold water...
" There's an old folk warning that if you throw a frog in boiling water he will quickly jump out. But if you put a frog in a pan of cold water and raise the temperature ever so slowly, the gradual warming will make the frog dozehappily . . .in fact, the frog will eventually cook to death, without ever waking up."
snopes.com Slow Boiled Frog
Regulating speech to any degree is raising the temperature on the American electorate: how much of the 'heat' can we stand, before we're not America any longer?
How much 'regulation' of free speech?
And who benefits from said 'regulation'???
Have you noticed which party is regularly behind said 'regulation'?
3. So....what value is the first amendment..... "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech,..." ?
Answer: we have to stop well before we reach the boiling point....after all....who really suffers from luke warm water?
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,..."
4. As Supreme Court Chief Justice Rehnquist so correctly said:
" Once we have abandoned the idea that the authority of the courts to declare laws unconstitutional is somehow tied to the language of the Constitution that the people adopted, a judiciary exercising the power of judicial review appears in a quite different light."
WILLIAM H. REHNQUIST
http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol29_No2_Rehnquist.pdf
(Justice Rehnquist was not of the party under discussion here.....)
Republican Book Burners Politics Plus
[
Man I hope I brought enough pellets..
You really do not understand the electoral college, do you?
It's not what you stated earlier.Just give it time. Last year we stated gay marriage could lead to incest marriage. We were told we were crazy, well it's gonna happen in New York.
Since you have no idea what the issue is here you should probably just stop posting in this thread.
You keep proving that the far left does not understand the Constitution..
I understand the Constitution to mean that it is not unconstitutional to pass laws against child pornography,
the language of the 1st Amendment notwithstanding.
Am I right or wrong?
You are a far left drone that is upset that child porn in illegal.
If that is the case you want to make why put people away for murder? or for domestic violence? after all they were just expressing themselves right?
Try to be reasonable for once in your life. I'm not the one arguing that child porn laws are unconstitutional. The OP is strongly implying they are because they abridge free speech and freedom of the press.
Why don't reread the OP and see if I'm not correct.
I bet you approve eh?The famous book-burners of all time were the left wing Nazis party.
If the GOP sees itself as inferior and so malleable that those without political power in Hollywood can control the nominating process, why should Americans subscribe to the GOP?There's always a scapegoat, isn't there? Why didn't the far right candidates do as well as Romney in the primaries? Because they titillated the GOP rabid base while frightening the GOP majority. So, the rabid GOP base, constantly looking for someone else to blame, fell back on their favorite scapegoat: The Left.
I have no more say in who the GOP runs than you do. The party left me in 1988.
What the GOP has is a bad case of inferiority complex. The democrat controlled press tells them that if they don't run left of center losers like Romney then Matt Damon and George Clooney won't like them and will say mean things about them.
The Republicans appear to be too stupid to grasp that Matt Damon and George Clooney will spew hatred at them regardless of what they do. Disenfranchising the base to please the Hollywood left is a recipe for failure - but one the democrats can always get the Republicans to follow.
