The Democrat War Against Free Speech

[PaintMyHouse]

So, the words say "no law" and yet we have many. Why is this so difficult for people to understand that reading between the lines is necessary?

 

[Wyatt earp]

You hate talk radio and cable networks like fox, it fucks up your propaganda to the stupid/ shallow voters in your party

So you spin it and attack a very smart girl like political chick

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

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?

 

[Kosh]

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?

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

 

[PaintMyHouse]

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

He isn't, he's trying to understand why you and OP aren't, as are the rest of us?

Now, be a man for once and answer the question.

 

[PoliticalChic]

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?

Defended the obvious????

You silly thing you.

Democrats never stop trying to limit, curtail, ....abridge.....things folks can say.


Recently the Supreme Court decided to allow a suit against an Ohio law abridging political speech:

5. "The victory today in the Supreme Court of the Susan B. Anthony List is no doubt cause for encouragement — for friends of both the pro-life movement and the First Amendment (or do we repeat ourselves?).

The case involved an appeal by the Susan B. Anthony List, a pro-life group named for the suffragette and opponent of abortion. It had been targeted in Ohio under a law that makes it a crime to make a false statement against a candidate up for election. There is no adverb in the English — or any other — language adequate to describing just how outrageous is the law.
This is what the regulation of political speech has done to America. It takes years just to gain the right to go to court to argue the constitutionality of a law regulating what a person can say about his own congressman.

The congressman — now an ex-congressman — is a Democrat called Steven Driehaus, who was swept into the House during the tide that landed President Obama in the White House. Susan B. Anthony got on his case owing to his vote for Obamacare. It planned to put up a billboard saying “Shame on Steve Driehaus! Driehaus voted FOR taxpayer-funded abortion.” The logic for making this connection is illuminated in, among other places, a position paper published by the Heritage Foundation. It references the Hyde Amendment, which prohibits federal funding of abortion. Congressman Hyde would be turning over in his grave at the thought of Obamacare.

” Mr. Driehaus [the Democrat] filed a complaint against Susan B. Anthony List in respect of the planned billboard against him. It was a criminal complaint. The billboard company then declined to put up the billboard. The congressman lost the election anyhow and dropped the complaint. But Susan B. Anthony filed a lawsuit to vouchsafe its constitutional rights. It has just won a chance to get heard."
Susan Anthony s Victory - The New York Sun
Amen.


See why the title of the thread is "The Democrat War Against Free Speech"?


BTW.....thanks for asking.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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?

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?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

If there is a War on Free Speech here PC, it started before the nation was formed...

 

[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?

Because you brought it up! Far left drones really do not understand the narratives they run on. If you were not upset about you never would have mention it..

I was 'upset' that the OP posted such a grievous error in how the 1st amendment should be applied and was using child porn to illustrate the consequences of her grievous error.

 

[Camp]

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..

Do you understand that drones are robots and robots are programmed to be repetitive? Every time you use your repetitive phrase referring to far left drones you are in fact behaving like a drone. You are behaving like a drone to accuse others of being drones. Your responses and post are more drone like than any other poster on the board.

 

[Kosh]

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?

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?

Again why are you obsessed with child porn?

 

[paperview]

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?

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.

 

[Moonglow]

You hate talk radio and cable networks like fox, it fucks up your propaganda to the stupid/ shallow voters in your party

So you spin it and attack a very smart girl like political chick

She's not small, why she has a large torso to support such a super inflated head with a large mouth to add....

 

[PoliticalChic]

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.

Snakes do what their nature has them to do.....and liars like you, the same.


Quote me and try to rebut.

You can't.

 

[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?

Because you brought it up! Far left drones really do not understand the narratives they run on. If you were not upset about you never would have mention it..

I was 'upset' that the OP posted such a grievous error in how the 1st amendment should be applied and was using child porn to illustrate the consequences of her grievous error.

So you ran the obvious far left drone tactic and used child porn as your example?

Then can not understand why it looks like you are upset about child porn being illegal?

Could not come up with a better example? Can the far left drones not use better examples?

 

[Kosh]

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?

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.

Oh so you would be against the far left for using such examples? or just Ann Coulter?

 

[Moonglow]

Democrats never stop trying to limit, curtail, ....abridge.....things folks can say.

So that's why Huckabee is on a nation wide tour telling everyone how they should and shouldn't talk and act?

He a democrat?

 

[Moonglow]

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?

Because you brought it up! Far left drones really do not understand the narratives they run on. If you were not upset about you never would have mention it..

I was 'upset' that the OP posted such a grievous error in how the 1st amendment should be applied and was using child porn to illustrate the consequences of her grievous error.

So you ran the obvious far left drone tactic and used child porn as your example?

Then can not understand why it looks like you are upset about child porn being illegal?

Could not come up with a better example? Can the far left drones not use better examples?

spamulicious....

 

[Wyatt earp]

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?

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?

Lmao you trying to out debate political chic is like watching my crappy chicago bears Trying to beat the gay bay packers last year
Lol
You both suck

 

[Camp]

Specifically what did I lie about?

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?

Again why are you obsessed with child porn?

You really are a POS trying to imply a poster was obsessed with child porn. It borders of an accusation. The poster used child porn as a way show how stupid and ridiculous the OP and her supporters were. It worked. Now stop being such a scum bucket.