The Democrat War Against Free Speech

[PaintMyHouse]

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.

This is gilding the lily, but let me point out what a stupid post yours is....

Coulter has penned some dozen best sellers that make the Left apoplectic.....speech is her 'sword' and that's what you Leftists hate.

See how stupid this sounds:"Nutcake Coulter obviously has a problem with First Amendment."

Then why did she want a terrorist to blow up the New York Times building?

Why would the far left want to blow up Fox News?

Hatred, in both cases. It's not that hard to get eh?

 

[Wry Catcher]

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.....)

A. "Congress shall make no law"; but it does. Are you arguing that Marbury v. Madison violates the original intent of the First Amendment? That all speech should be free and unfettered?

1. That the Freedom of Speech shall not be infringed

a. We have the right to call in a bomb scare
b. We have the right to defame anyone
c. We can commit perjury
d. We can scream fire in a crowded theater

Shall we talk about expression?

Do you support a law which denies a citizen from burning the American Flag?

Where did you stand on "Bong hits 4 Jesus" [Morse v. Frederick, 551 U.S. __, 127 S. Ct. 2618 (2007)]

Facts and Case Summary Morse v. Frederick

 

[PaintMyHouse]

PC is reality-adverse, obviously.

 

[Kosh]

There is no such thing as freedom of speech!

 

[Wry Catcher]

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?

Concrete thinkers don't really think, they accept whatever fits their emotional needs at the time and fits into the world view they've adopted from others.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

There is no such thing as freedom of speech!

Good, progress. Free Speech, like all rights, has limitations.

 

[PoliticalChic]

For a second just think about all the left wing rants against Fox. Not a day goes by that the left doesn't whine about Fox. The right wing might criticize a statement made by a so-called journalist on an alphabet network but almost nobody on the right criticizes a news network. The rants against Fox are an example of the left's war against information. Sometimes the low information left looks like they don't have a brain in their heads. All they do is regurgitate Huffington blogs based on Media Matters hatred of Fox.

Lose the NYT to get rid of Fox? That might just be worth the trade-off.

A well-known desire of the Left is to minimize, silence, abridge.....the speech it opposes.

Your post verifies the title of the thread.

Thanks.

Fox is technically Free Speech, but it's actually Propaganda. I'm not a fan of propaganda but the US is pretty damn good at it, at least during war it is.

What a great opportunity to remind all of the provenance of propaganda: the Progressives!


The first true enterprise of this kind was established in the in the United States under the 20th century’s first fascist dictator: Woodrow Wilson. During WW I, under the Progressive Woodrow Wilson, American was a fascist nation.

a. Had the world’s first modern propaganda ministry

b. Political prisoners by the thousands were harassed, beaten, spied upon and thrown in jail for simply expressing private opinions.

c. The national leader accused foreigners and immigrants of injecting treasonous ‘poison’ into the American bloodstream

1. Newspapers and magazines were closed for criticizing the government

e. Almost 100,000 government propaganda agents were sent out to whip up support for the regime and the war

f. College professors imposed loyalty oaths on their colleagues

g. Nearly a quarter million ‘goons’ were given legal authority to beat and intimidate ‘slackers’ and dissenters

h. Leading artists and writers dedicated their work to proselytizing for the government.
http://www.ncpa.org/pdfs/Classical_Liberalism_vs_Modern_Liberal_Conservatism.pdf p. 9


Bet you'd like to delete that post.....
Put your foot in your mouth again, huh?

 

[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?

Concrete thinkers don't really think, they accept whatever fits their emotional needs at the time and fits into the world view they've adopted from others.

Apparently. I don't know how someone like the OP could miss reality by so damn many miles.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I hope you stay tuned....you must know that I have much more ammunition.

You're shooting blanks, as usual. And your OP was DOA.

Sooooo.....how come you're still tryin' to combat it?

 

[Moonglow]

The only ones here.that deletes my posts is liberal mods when I hurt there feelings

It's what you post, not who posted it...

 

[Wyatt earp]

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.....)

A. "Congress shall make no law"; but it does. Are you arguing that Marbury v. Madison violates the original intent of the First Amendment? That all speech should be free and unfettered?

1. That the Freedom of Speech shall not be infringed

a. We have the right to call in a bomb scare
b. We have the right to defame anyone
c. We can commit perjury
d. We can scream fire in a crowded theater

Shall we talk about expression?

Do you support a law which denies a citizen from burning the American Flag?

Where did you stand on "Bong hits 4 Jesus" [Morse v. Frederick, 551 U.S. __, 127 S. Ct. 2618 (2007)]

Facts and Case Summary Morse v. Frederick

You have the right to scream fire in a crowded theater, but be prepared to get your ass stomped by myself and a few other guys if your lying

It is what it is

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Bet you'd like to delete that post.....
Put your foot in your mouth again, huh?

I support Free Speech, the more free the better since my people came up with the idea, but not Propaganda, and they didn't suck at that either.

 

[Nosmo King]

Burning an American flag is political speech. Flags do no give off sufficient heat or light. They are inefficient fuel. But burning one on the courthouse steps isn't intended to provide heat or light. It is intended as political speech.

Should flag burning be protected speech? As there is no wiggle room, no doubt the OP would support protester's right to light up Old Glory.

Now, soon will come responses by right wing idiots who will say that my example means I support flag burning. Unfortunately, here at USMB, we get bogged down in the un-nuanced minds of such folk, as we have seen with the comments about child pornography. Using examples is a great way of making a point, but those examples, when taken literally by literalists tend to put the brakes on sound arguments.

Just consider the OP when she states "no wiggle room" even when faced with true political speech like flag burning.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The OP also brought up flag desecration - which is Free Speech, which by the way, was something many on the Republican party wanted to ban - so much so, they tried to enshrine that prohibition on Free Speech in our Constitution.

"The OP also brought up flag desecration - which is Free Speech,..."

Link, you dunce?

Your OP, dunce.

When you speak of Free Speech, you bring up all that *is* Free Speech.

There is no such mention in the OP.

See how you've catapulted yourself into the liar category?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

I hope you stay tuned....you must know that I have much more ammunition.

You're shooting blanks, as usual. And your OP was DOA.

Sooooo.....how come you're still tryin' to combat it?

Because you have yet to understand why you have no fucking clue what you are talking about.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

The OP also brought up flag desecration - which is Free Speech, which by the way, was something many on the Republican party wanted to ban - so much so, they tried to enshrine that prohibition on Free Speech in our Constitution.

"The OP also brought up flag desecration - which is Free Speech,..."

Link, you dunce?

Your OP, dunce.

When you speak of Free Speech, you bring up all that *is* Free Speech.

There is no such mention in the OP.

See how you've catapulted yourself into the liar category?

Reality again. Burning the American flag is an act of Political Speech, meaning Free Speech.

 

[Wyatt earp]

The only ones here.that deletes my posts is liberal mods when I hurt there feelings

It's what you post, not who posted it...

Lmao ass off ask me again if I give a fuck about your no substance come back?

Smoke another bowl, fool

 

[Wry Catcher]

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?

Well, he looks more like a hippopotamus than a rino, but clearly he's an Authoritarian like Christie, Cruz, and most of the wannabes who will run for the GOP nomination.

 

[paperview]

The OP also brought up flag desecration - which is Free Speech, which by the way, was something many on the Republican party wanted to ban - so much so, they tried to enshrine that prohibition on Free Speech in our Constitution.

"The OP also brought up flag desecration - which is Free Speech,..."

Link, you dunce?

Your OP, dunce.

When you speak of Free Speech, you bring up all that *is* Free Speech.

The OP also brought up flag desecration - which is Free Speech, which by the way, was something many on the Republican party wanted to ban - so much so, they tried to enshrine that prohibition on Free Speech in our Constitution.

"The OP also brought up flag desecration - which is Free Speech,..."

Link, you dunce?

Your OP, dunce.

When you speak of Free Speech, you bring up all that *is* Free Speech.

There is no such mention in the OP.

See how you've catapulted yourself into the liar category?

1. Is flag desecration Free Speech or not?

Yes or No?

2. Is your OP about Free Speech?

Yes or No?

The answer is Yes in both case.

 

[Kosh]

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?

Well, he looks more like a hippopotamus than a rino, but clearly he's an Authoritarian like Christie, Cruz, and most of the wannabes who will run for the GOP nomination.

And the far left propaganda drones come in and shoot their propaganda missiles which misses by light years.