The Democrat War Against Free Speech

[PoliticalChic]

Net Neutrality is all about free speech and access to free speech.

Even for you, that is an astoundingly stupid claim.

I get it, you have no fucking idea what net neutrality is, or what it does - but the hate sites told you to be for it - so you are.

People against it are in favor of corporate control of what will me available to users of the net, depending on which service provider is being used. It equates to straight forward fascism.

Are you actually drunk, or are you truly this ignorant?

Maybe you could explain what net neutrality is and how I got it all wrong. Tell us about what it does. Maybe you could find some links that are more smarter and betterer than the ones I might be able to find.

Net Neutrality is totalitarian government using the protection racket: it goes to companies who have invested their treasure an taken the risks, and tells them how to run their businesses.

For the purposes of this essay, the get their claws into exactly what they can and cannot allow to be said.

The Democrat LBJ used same powers to eviscerate the free speech rights of churches.....imagine how the socialist in power now will use same on the internet.


But, as Bogart and Bergman will always have Paris.....the communists and socialists will always have you.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Read her OP -- then the part where she failed to address the issue at all. She said the was "no wiggle room" in laws banning Free Speech.

This isn't difficult.

I read it, however I am not a desperate troll seeking to obfuscate the fact that the democrats are at war to crush civil rights, particularly the right to speak and express opinions not sanctioned by the party.

You of the anti-liberty left are merely blowing smoke in hopes of distracting from the central issue - which is the attack on the 1st and basic liberty by the fascist democrats.

Just to reiterate, the liar, PaperWeight, pretended to ignore this, in the OP:

"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."

We read it. And the :"But" that immediately followed that line --

and your hot frog babble...

and your definitive conclusion: "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,..."

Wow...you're really scrambling to get out from under that appellation 'liar'.....but it's too late.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

PC is against Free Speech, she approves of limiting it.

 

[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'????

1 Wouldn't you sue for defamation if someone's lies cost or threatened your job?

Dunce, you can sue Mickey D's if your fries are too short.

Wait! I thought Dems we're remiss for not defending his right to sue?

That third word in...'thought'......your ability to use same not in evidence....but I'll allow it in the vernacular based on "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech,..."

 

[PoliticalChic]

PC is against Free Speech, she approves of limiting it.

Now, you know that that isn't true.....I love watching you put your foot in your mouth.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The only way I'm a liar is if flag desecration in *not* Free Speech.

Is it, or isn't it?

Comrade, can you point to a post where PC advocated for banning flag desecration?

If not, your straw man fails.

BTW, do you ever shop anywhere but "Fallacies R Us?"

Wait.....you're not suggesting that NYLiar lied?????

What is this world coming to.

I'm not even mentioned in the posts you're quoting.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

PC is against Free Speech, she approves of limiting it.

Now, you know that that isn't true.....I love watching you put your foot in your mouth.

Well, you do approve of limits right? So, you're anti-free speech then.

Weren't you suggesting that "no law" was the way to go?

 

[Impenitent]

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'????

1 Wouldn't you sue for defamation if someone's lies cost or threatened your job?

Dunce, you can sue Mickey D's if your fries are too short.

Wait! I thought Dems we're remiss for not defending his right to sue?

That third word in...'thought'......your ability to use same not in evidence....but I'll allow it in the vernacular based on "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech,..."

Why no defense of your assertions?

Could it be the blog you ripped them off from didn't cover every possibility?

 

[NYcarbineer]

PC is against Free Speech, she approves of limiting it.

Now, you know that that isn't true.....I love watching you put your foot in your mouth.

In the post below you endorsed leaving the issue of flag burning to the states -

We Don t Need No Stinkin Judges.... US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

...see number 5. You thus believe it doesn't deserve 1st Amendment protection.

 

[NYcarbineer]

A Republican assault on Free Speech:

Four ALEC State Senators Behind Anti-Union Bill In Georgia ThinkProgress

 

[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'????

1 Wouldn't you sue for defamation if someone's lies cost or threatened your job?

Dunce, you can sue Mickey D's if your fries are too short.

Wait! I thought Dems we're remiss for not defending his right to sue?

That third word in...'thought'......your ability to use same not in evidence....but I'll allow it in the vernacular based on "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech,..."

Why no defense of your assertions?

Could it be the blog you ripped them off from didn't cover every possibility?

Why have you inserted this lie?

Could it be you've been hurt by what I've revealed about your....limitations?


Good.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Kansas Republicans Want to Outlaw Any Free Speech They Don’t Like

Kansas Republicans Want to Outlaw Any Free Speech They Don 8217 t Like

 

[Impenitent]

1 Wouldn't you sue for defamation if someone's lies cost or threatened your job?

Dunce, you can sue Mickey D's if your fries are too short.

Wait! I thought Dems we're remiss for not defending his right to sue?

That third word in...'thought'......your ability to use same not in evidence....but I'll allow it in the vernacular based on "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech,..."

Why no defense of your assertions?

Could it be the blog you ripped them off from didn't cover every possibility?

Why have you inserted this lie?

Could it be you've been hurt by what I've revealed about your....limitations?


Good.

What should I infer from your sudden deathly silence?

" 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???
...
Where are all the Leftist posts supporting this unconstitutional power grab???


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

Won't defend? Or can't?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Dunce, you can sue Mickey D's if your fries are too short.

Wait! I thought Dems we're remiss for not defending his right to sue?

That third word in...'thought'......your ability to use same not in evidence....but I'll allow it in the vernacular based on "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech,..."

Why no defense of your assertions?

Could it be the blog you ripped them off from didn't cover every possibility?

Why have you inserted this lie?

Could it be you've been hurt by what I've revealed about your....limitations?


Good.

What should I infer from your sudden deathly silence?

" 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???
...
Where are all the Leftist posts supporting this unconstitutional power grab???


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

Won't defend? Or can't?

You cur, are you now scampering away from "Could it be the blog you ripped them off from didn't cover every possibility?"

Speak up, low-life.

 

[Impenitent]

Wait! I thought Dems we're remiss for not defending his right to sue?

That third word in...'thought'......your ability to use same not in evidence....but I'll allow it in the vernacular based on "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech,..."

Why no defense of your assertions?

Could it be the blog you ripped them off from didn't cover every possibility?

Why have you inserted this lie?

Could it be you've been hurt by what I've revealed about your....limitations?


Good.

What should I infer from your sudden deathly silence?

" 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???
...
Where are all the Leftist posts supporting this unconstitutional power grab???


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

Won't defend? Or can't?

You cur, are you now scampering away from "Could it be the blog you ripped them off from didn't cover every possibility?"

Speak up, low-life.

That is what I inferred from your "deathly silence" on the Dem defamation case.

BTW, how is Glen Beck doing on his? Is he asserting, as would you, freedom of speech?

 

[Wildman]

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

I bet you approve eh?

Not a left wing Nazi here. I'm more inclined to burning a Islamic terrorist.

You'll burn whatever you can get your hands on, Islamic person, Islamic book, Islamic building. You're the kind of Nazi Hitler loved.

>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<

..........................

 

[Wildman]

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

I bet you approve eh?

Not a left wing Nazi here. I'm more inclined to burning a Islamic terrorist.

You'll burn whatever you can get your hands on, Islamic person, Islamic book, Islamic building. You're the kind of Nazi Hitler loved.

>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<

..........................

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

if there was a DISAGREE button i would not have to go to all this trouble to post my disagreement !!

we need a DISAGREE icon/button !!!!!!

 

[PoliticalChic]

That third word in...'thought'......your ability to use same not in evidence....but I'll allow it in the vernacular based on "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech,..."

Why no defense of your assertions?

Could it be the blog you ripped them off from didn't cover every possibility?

Why have you inserted this lie?

Could it be you've been hurt by what I've revealed about your....limitations?


Good.

What should I infer from your sudden deathly silence?

" 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???
...
Where are all the Leftist posts supporting this unconstitutional power grab???


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

Won't defend? Or can't?

You cur, are you now scampering away from "Could it be the blog you ripped them off from didn't cover every possibility?"

Speak up, low-life.

That is what I inferred from your "deathly silence" on the Dem defamation case.

BTW, how is Glen Beck doing on his? Is he asserting, as would you, freedom of speech?

That's right, scurry away, you dog.

The only thing ever 'ripped off' was any diploma you ever got.

 

[hadit]

"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!!!

Those were not "Libs" who voted for G. W. Bush, nor were the five who gave him the office of POTUS even though he had lost the popular vote.

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.

Whether it should be repealed or not is moot because it represents the rules in play at the time, and to complain that a president should not have been elected because he/she didn't get the majority popular vote is meaningless.

 

[hadit]

Yes and no matter how "stupid" a far left drone my think the OP is, the far drone that used child porn as their example should win the award for "stupidity"..

However leave it to the far left drones to overlook their own..

Just a hint to the far left: There is no such thing as freedom of speech!

Is child pornography a 1st amendment issue or not?

It is not. It is the exploitation of children.

It was, once, but let's say some guy owns a picture of CP taken 40 years ago, how is that exploitation? Maybe the picture is a from a Sears catalog but he uses it as porn. Legal or not?

In the first case, you still have to deal with damage to a private individual. In the second, you have to define what you're talking about.

That makes it a "thought crime", since porno, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. Why should someone who owns CP he had no part in creating be breaking the law? Why is it a crime, and it is, to use adults that only appear to be children for porn? Why is CP outlawed at all, if the OP is correct? Maybe it was created by someone who paid the kids off and they were happy to get naked, so, what's illegal about that? We pay them to model nearly nude all the time. And pictures of nudist kids are legal, so, where's the OP's 'no law" theory, besides down the toilet as usual?

If you want to strip away laws that reflect the morality of the community, but don't enjoy unanimous support, you would have a lot fewer laws. Things like laws establishing no first amendment zones around abortion mills come to mind, or laws prohibiting people from exercising their second amendment rights. Now, I happen to agree with laws against the exploitation of children for sexual purposes. Do you not agree with them? If you want to argue around the edges of such laws, fine, but understand that what you are doing is merely asking for finer definitions of the law.