The Democrat War Against Free Speech

[PoliticalChic]

I noticed that all our Liberal/Progressive/Democrat pals are deathly silent about

1. ...a Democrat Congressman suing to keep some group from advertising that his vote authorized funds for abortion....
none of the Leftists defending him???

2. ....Democrats Reid and Markey want 'hate speech' legislation ...causes of offense are "gender, race, religion, ethnicity or sexual orientation."

In other words, anything.
....none of the Leftists penning posts in favor of same???

3. ....and Democrat LBJ, the 'father of illegitimacy,' made it illegal for churches to engage in political speech.
Where are all the Leftist posts supporting this unconstitutional power grab???


Where is all that vaunted Leftist 'critical thinking'????

 

[paperview]

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?

O h goodie.

We actually have a conservative republican on the thread who has stated bluntly, boldly and often he thinks the First Amendment should be abolished.

Your presence in this thread is delish, AveGuyIA.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

The OP must have drifted off to fight against laws outlawing the possession of kiddie porn, since those laws are unconstitutional...

 

[Uncensored2008]

Did you even read the OP? Do you even see what she is claiming?

If so, then tell us in your own words what she claimed.

She is claiming that you fascist democrats are at war with the 1st Amendment - which is irrefutable fact. That the Obama administration seeks to deny civil rights to the public at large cannot be denied.

You sought to use child pornography as a red herring to distract from the fact that your party is engaged in open war to end civil rights. If you want to know WHY child pornography is not protected as free speech, then follow the link I've provided and read what the court wrote.

Otherwise, we return to the assault this administration and the fascist democratic party are waging on freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of assembly, etc.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Does "best selling" equal quality?

Ann Coulter (winner of the Tom Petty look-alike contest) is a flame throwing demagogue. Her paychecks are dependent on stirring the shallow pot of rabid right political sensibilities.

The irony of a fascist democrat calling ANYONE "demagogue" is amusing enough, but on the heels of your slander about "Tom Petty," it's just too precious.

For you to grasp what a fool you make of yourself would require a level of self-awareness you will never achieve...

 

[Uncensored2008]

I would have run Palin, and enjoyed watching Obama destroy her.

Maybe he could have sniffed her panties on stage?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Did you even read the OP? Do you even see what she is claiming?

If so, then tell us in your own words what she claimed.

She is claiming that you fascist democrats are at war with the 1st Amendment - which is irrefutable fact. That the Obama administration seeks to deny civil rights to the public at large cannot be denied.

You sought to use child pornography as a red herring to distract from the fact that your party is engaged in open war to end civil rights. If you want to know WHY child pornography is not protected as free speech, then follow the link I've provided and read what the court wrote.

Otherwise, we return to the assault this administration and the fascist democratic party are waging on freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of assembly, etc.

Tell us, can the courts outlaw guns, privacy, how about Due Process? You seem to have no issues with them outlawing certain types of speech so what's the problem here?

 

[Nosmo King]

Does "best selling" equal quality?

Ann Coulter (winner of the Tom Petty look-alike contest) is a flame throwing demagogue. Her paychecks are dependent on stirring the shallow pot of rabid right political sensibilities.

The irony of a fascist democrat calling ANYONE "demagogue" is amusing enough, but on the heels of your slander about "Tom Petty," it's just too precious.

For you to grasp what a fool you make of yourself would require a level of self-awareness you will never achieve...

I don't conform to your narrow template of political appropriateness, it's true. But to assume that those who fail to erode down to such a restrictive pattern of political ideology are foolish betrays a chauvinism rarely seen outside dive bars, trailer parks and Special Education busses.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

I would have run Palin, and enjoyed watching Obama destroy her.

Maybe he could have sniffed her panties on stage?

Wouldn't happen, he's scum-adverse.

 

[Uncensored2008]

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?

Hollywood is the most powerful force in the nation - it has utterly destroyed the basic family structure in a single generation and turned homosexuality from a perversion to the most celebrated choice anyone can make.

I understand the fear the GOP has of the Hollywood propaganda machine. It isn't just MSNBC and the Alphabet news - but every episode of Modern Family, Law & Order, all the kiddie cartoons like Family Guy that form the opinions of democrats, et al.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

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?

Hollywood is the most powerful force in the nation...

Really, who told you that?

 

[Uncensored2008]

I don't conform to your narrow template of political appropriateness, it's true.

You don't conform to basic integrity. Accusing others of demagoguery whilst you openly engage in slander is a level of hypocrisy you embrace.

The irony of it is amusing.

But to assume that those who fail to erode down to such a restrictive pattern of political ideology are foolish betrays a chauvinism rarely seen outside dive bars, trailer parks and Special Education busses.

I'm sure that you felt the random mixture of phases would appear erudite; sadly you have once again communicated nothing at all.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Wouldn't happen, he's scum-adverse.

He's female adverse, that's for sure. Perhaps he could hire Creepy Joe McGinniss to sniff them for him

 

[Uncensored2008]

Really, who told you that?

Reason - you really wouldn't understand.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Really, who told you that?

Reason - you really wouldn't understand.

Reason? Believing that "Hollywood is the most powerful force in the nation..." is nothing like reason. It's like something a stupid child would say, ergo.

Capitalism is the most powerful force in the nation. Bad movies and politically active actors are just a small part of that. That's what reason looks like.

 

[Nosmo King]

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?

Hollywood is the most powerful force in the nation - it has utterly destroyed the basic family structure in a single generation and turned homosexuality from a perversion to the most celebrated choice anyone can make.

I understand the fear the GOP has of the Hollywood propaganda machine. It isn't just MSNBC and the Alphabet news - but every episode of Modern Family, Law & Order, all the kiddie cartoons like Family Guy that form the opinions of democrats, et al.

Hard to fathom. Hollywood as the most powerful force in this nation. One would think churches might be more powerful. National political organizations such as the NRA might be more powerful than a sitcom. But if a scapegoat has to be found (and a scapegoat is always preferable to a palatable political idea for Conservatives) Hollywood will suffice.

 

[Nosmo King]

I don't conform to your narrow template of political appropriateness, it's true.

You don't conform to basic integrity. Accusing others of demagoguery whilst you openly engage in slander is a level of hypocrisy you embrace.

The irony of it is amusing.

But to assume that those who fail to erode down to such a restrictive pattern of political ideology are foolish betrays a chauvinism rarely seen outside dive bars, trailer parks and Special Education busses.

I'm sure that you felt the random mixture of phases would appear erudite; sadly you have once again communicated nothing at all.

My apologies to Mr. Petty.

 

[PoliticalChic]

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.....)

Republicans are book burners. The only free speech they want it hate speech.

Republican Book Burners Politics Plus

The famous book-burners of all time were the left wing Nazis party.

Absolutely!

Those Leftist National Socialists went further.....when they couldn't get hold of Erich Maria Remarque, who wrote the pacifist 'Im Westen nichts Neues,,' they arrested his sister....December 16, 1943, pacifist novelist Erich Maria Remarque lost his youngest sister to the Nazi regime — beheaded because her “brother is beyond our reach.”
ExecutedToday.com 1943 Elfriede Scholz Erich Maria Remarque 8217 s sister

 

[PoliticalChic]

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.

I did no such thing, NYLiar.....

From the OP:
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.

 

[BlueGin]

Coulter is a comedian, but you guys don't get the joke. And she was right about Romney. You ran him and you lost.

Romney was the choice of the left for the GOP to run. Now you demand the GOP run Jeb Bush.

If they listen to you again, they deserve to lose.

AMEN