The Democrat War Against Free Speech

[NYcarbineer]

Right on cue another far left drone comment not based on reality..

Another right winger trapped in hypocrisy. Automatically took the side of the OP without realizing it was the opposite of Koshology. Oops if we follow the PC idea in the OP kiddy porn has to be accepted and allowed. Well no, Koshology allows for selected exceptions. Koshology experts will determine when the PC interpretation of the constitution can be ignored. We will form a panel or court and call it KSCOTUS.

And another far left drone that does not only understand the OP, but does not understand the Constitution..

Tell us in your own words what point the OP is trying to make. What is she trying to 'teach' us about the 1st Amendment.

Then you can tell us in your own words why you've figured out she's wrong.

See the far left tells me that I must tell the OP she is wrong because this far left drone is upset because child porn is illegal..

But you are a known liar so.......

What's funny is that he's even more confused than usual, which is a high bar to clear.

 

[PoliticalChic]

And focus like a laser on this phrase: "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech,..."
No wiggle room there...'no law.'

DOA, since there are many laws. How long before you little morons learn that your rights come from the government, and have limitations?

How'd you like the results of the last election?

How long before you learn?

 

[Moonglow]

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.

I see the HYPOCRISY of the Progressive left is still alive and well!

This message,,cut it also....

I see you've stumbled on a now method of increasing your post-total.

And, this one doesn't require any thinking, either!

Maybe someone will clue you in...

 

[BlindBoo]

Another right winger trapped in hypocrisy. Automatically took the side of the OP without realizing it was the opposite of Koshology. Oops if we follow the PC idea in the OP kiddy porn has to be accepted and allowed. Well no, Koshology allows for selected exceptions. Koshology experts will determine when the PC interpretation of the constitution can be ignored. We will form a panel or court and call it KSCOTUS.

And another far left drone that does not only understand the OP, but does not understand the Constitution..

Tell us in your own words what point the OP is trying to make. What is she trying to 'teach' us about the 1st Amendment.

Then you can tell us in your own words why you've figured out she's wrong.

See the far left tells me that I must tell the OP she is wrong because this far left drone is upset because child porn is illegal..

But you are a known liar so.......

What's funny is that he's even more confused than usual, which is a high bar to clear.

And PC cited Coulter, so the IQ just drops from here.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Listen up you leftist morons, this is how it will work from now on....

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.

and that business is a person...

You mean only a union is a person?

How very Liberal of you....

 

[Moonglow]

And focus like a laser on this phrase: "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech,..."
No wiggle room there...'no law.'

DOA, since there are many laws. How long before you little morons learn that your rights come from the government, and have limitations?

How'd you like the results of the last election?

How long before you learn?

And the last election proves what? The next election will prove what? That the worm does turn?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

And focus like a laser on this phrase: "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech,..."
No wiggle room there...'no law.'

DOA, since there are many laws. How long before you little morons learn that your rights come from the government, and have limitations?

How'd you like the results of the last election?

How long before you learn?

The results that were entirely expected you mean? No problem, because in a two-party system they switch places every few years. It's always throw the bums out, and now you're the bums.

 

[Kosh]

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.

The irony of the "Try to be reasonable for once in your life." from a far left drone..

Yes you are upset that child porn is illegal and that you blazed into the thread running the standard far left narrative.

And your latest post shows that you do not understand the OP by the far left programming that you run on..

Where did I say I was upset child porn was illegal?

I said just the opposite. Can you grow up just a little and learn to be reasonable?

I doubt it.

Has the OP come back yet and defended her stupid premise of a thread?

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

And based on your far left narrative you ran, you were. Or do you considering following your far left programming not Lying?

 

[PoliticalChic]

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.

The irony of the "Try to be reasonable for once in your life." from a far left drone..

Yes you are upset that child porn is illegal and that you blazed into the thread running the standard far left narrative.

And your latest post shows that you do not understand the OP by the far left programming that you run on..

Where did I say I was upset child porn was illegal?

I said just the opposite. Can you grow up just a little and learn to be reasonable?

Wow!


Someone used your technique....and you're burned????

Your post is today's winner in the category of "Unintentional Humor."

Congrats.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I'll be happy to. The conclusion you drew after weighing the issue:

"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,..."

That position, strictly applied, makes laws against child porn unconstitutional.

That it does. Which means the OP is dead wrong, yet again, and reality wins, yet again.

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

 

[Moonglow]

Listen up you leftist morons, this is how it will work from now on....

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.

and that business is a person...

You mean only a union is a person?

How very Liberal of you....

No, in the later 1800's, early 1900's the GOP and the richest men in the USA got what they wanted, corporations are considered people...individual people, how do you throw a corporation in jail for law violations?

 

[paperview]

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.

The irony of the "Try to be reasonable for once in your life." from a far left drone..

Yes you are upset that child porn is illegal and that you blazed into the thread running the standard far left narrative.

And your latest post shows that you do not understand the OP by the far left programming that you run on..

Where did I say I was upset child porn was illegal?

I said just the opposite. Can you grow up just a little and learn to be reasonable?

I doubt it.

Has the OP come back yet and defended her stupid premise of a thread?

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)

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

The irony of the "Try to be reasonable for once in your life." from a far left drone..

Yes you are upset that child porn is illegal and that you blazed into the thread running the standard far left narrative.

And your latest post shows that you do not understand the OP by the far left programming that you run on..

Where did I say I was upset child porn was illegal?

I said just the opposite. Can you grow up just a little and learn to be reasonable?

I doubt it.

Has the OP come back yet and defended her stupid premise of a thread?

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

And based on your far left narrative you ran, you were. Or do you considering following your far left programming not Lying?

Specifically what did I lie about?

 

[Kosh]

I'll be happy to. The conclusion you drew after weighing the issue:

"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,..."

That position, strictly applied, makes laws against child porn unconstitutional.

That it does. Which means the OP is dead wrong, yet again, and reality wins, yet again.

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..

 

[PoliticalChic]

And another far left drone that does not only understand the OP, but does not understand the Constitution..

Tell us in your own words what point the OP is trying to make. What is she trying to 'teach' us about the 1st Amendment.

Then you can tell us in your own words why you've figured out she's wrong.

See the far left tells me that I must tell the OP she is wrong because this far left drone is upset because child porn is illegal..

But you are a known liar so.......

What's funny is that he's even more confused than usual, which is a high bar to clear.

And PC cited Coulter, so the IQ just drops from here.

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

 

[Wyatt earp]

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.

The irony of the "Try to be reasonable for once in your life." from a far left drone..

Yes you are upset that child porn is illegal and that you blazed into the thread running the standard far left narrative.

And your latest post shows that you do not understand the OP by the far left programming that you run on..

Where did I say I was upset child porn was illegal?

I said just the opposite. Can you grow up just a little and learn to be reasonable?

I doubt it.

Has the OP come back yet and defended her stupid premise of a thread?

Is the OP right or wrong? Are laws against child porn unconstitutional. She's implying they are.

We as a society as a whole has a job to protect our children, no matter how you twist and turn a law.

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?

NYLiar:

Please quote me instead of putting your usual dishonest Leftist spin on my posts.

With appreciation.....

and so on and so forth....

She just hates you because your a female Asian conservative smart Woman

Feel free to show anywhere I misrepresented her position. You can start with the above where I quoted her.

More spin I know what you liberals think like this

 

[Kosh]

And focus like a laser on this phrase: "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech,..."
No wiggle room there...'no law.'

DOA, since there are many laws. How long before you little morons learn that your rights come from the government, and have limitations?

How'd you like the results of the last election?

How long before you learn?

And the last election proves what? The next election will prove what? That the worm does turn?

That the far left religion is getting rejected..

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

The irony of the "Try to be reasonable for once in your life." from a far left drone..

Yes you are upset that child porn is illegal and that you blazed into the thread running the standard far left narrative.

And your latest post shows that you do not understand the OP by the far left programming that you run on..

Where did I say I was upset child porn was illegal?

I said just the opposite. Can you grow up just a little and learn to be reasonable?

I doubt it.

Has the OP come back yet and defended her stupid premise of a thread?

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)

I'll be happy to. The conclusion you drew after weighing the issue:

"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,..."

That position, strictly applied, makes laws against child porn unconstitutional.

That it does. Which means the OP is dead wrong, yet again, and reality wins, yet again.

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.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

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.

The irony of the "Try to be reasonable for once in your life." from a far left drone..

Yes you are upset that child porn is illegal and that you blazed into the thread running the standard far left narrative.

And your latest post shows that you do not understand the OP by the far left programming that you run on..

Where did I say I was upset child porn was illegal?

I said just the opposite. Can you grow up just a little and learn to be reasonable?

I doubt it.

Has the OP come back yet and defended her stupid premise of a thread?

We as a society as a whole has a job to protect our children, no matter how you twist and turn a law.

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?

NYLiar:

Please quote me instead of putting your usual dishonest Leftist spin on my posts.

With appreciation.....

and so on and so forth....

She just hates you because your a female Asian conservative smart Woman

Feel free to show anywhere I misrepresented her position. You can start with the above where I quoted her.

More spin I know what you liberals think like this

That's about Balance, not Censorship. And it's long overdue to be brought back into play. It's time for the hyper-partisans to take a hike, for a decade or two.

 

[paperview]

Tell us in your own words what point the OP is trying to make. What is she trying to 'teach' us about the 1st Amendment.

Then you can tell us in your own words why you've figured out she's wrong.

See the far left tells me that I must tell the OP she is wrong because this far left drone is upset because child porn is illegal..

But you are a known liar so.......

What's funny is that he's even more confused than usual, which is a high bar to clear.

And PC cited Coulter, so the IQ just drops from here.

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?