The Libtard Idea of What Freedomof Speech is, lol

[JimBowie1958]

Is there a point to this thread? I mean, other than that Jim and the other conservatives want to make it illegal for liberals to laugh at them. We already knew that.

It's free speech, conservatives. You can't stop us from mocking you, no matter how much you wish you could. If you want us to stop mocking you, just stop acting like such shitheads.

Liberals are authoritarians, according to conservatives, when they stand up against discrimination.

Stand up against discrimination? lololololol, you people ARE the hustlers who push the discrimination that is most often encountered in this country today; against white heterosexual males.

But conservatives have no qualms in trying to make America a theocracy, and restrict abortion rights and same-sex marriage.

Show me the federal office holder that advocates a theocracy you lying piece of shyte.

Not that it works of course, as the Supreme Court forces Republicans to accept that the US was founded a constitution that values freedom of expression, speech, and religion - not just one or the other (as obviously Republicans want America to be a 'christian nation' where free speech only applies to them).

Lol, yeah the SCOTUS walks on water as long as you PC Nazis agree with them, then rale against their corruption and 'old white men' when you disagree.

Go fuck off.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Why do you think gay people remain in the closet for so long? How much emotional damage is inflicted on gay people in order to "tolerate" intolerant conservatives?

People like you multiply that damage by allowing the law to reinforce the stigma against gay people.

And they give birth to more gays.

OH! The agony they must endure.

Yep, pure agony.

Stupid humor graphs are all you Nazis have left any more.

 

[JimBowie1958]

You May Do A Double-Take When You Hear What An MSNBC Host Say What Tolerance Means to Liberals

fellow contributor Jonathan Capehart was dismayed. He replied:

Tolerance, no, is not – it should not be a two-way street. It’s a one-way street.

You cannot say to someone that who you are is wrong, an abomination, is horrible, get a room, and all of those other things that people said about Michael Sam, and not be forced — not forced, but not be made to understand that what you’re saying and what you’re doing is wrong.

Nazis to the core of their being.

"freedom of speech"?

Read the second line in my signature and then explain what this has to do with the First Amendment.

Another PC Nazi who cant understand that free speech is more than a legal right but also a social construct as well.

Here is a quick view of where the PCNazis are trying to take us:

Freedom of speech - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In "On Liberty" (1859) John Stuart Mill argued that "...there ought to exist the fullest liberty of professing and discussing, as a matter of ethical conviction, any doctrine, however immoral it may be considered."[36] Mill argues that the fullest liberty of expression is required to push arguments to their logical limits, rather than the limits of social embarrassment. However, Mill also introduced what is known as the harm principle, in placing the following limitation on free expression: "the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others."[36]

In 1985 Joel Feinberg introduced what is known as the "offense principle", arguing that Mill's harm principle does not provide sufficient protection against the wrongful behaviours of others. Feinberg wrote "It is always a good reason in support of a proposed criminal prohibition that it would probably be an effective way of preventing serious offense (as opposed to injury or harm) to persons other than the actor, and that it is probably a necessary means to that end."[38] Hence Feinberg argues that the harm principle sets the bar too high and that some forms of expression can be legitimately prohibited by law because they are very offensive. But, as offending someone is less serious than harming someone, the penalties imposed should be higher for causing harm.[38] In contrast Mill does not support legal penalties unless they are based on the harm principle.[36] Because the degree to which people may take offense varies, or may be the result of unjustified prejudice, Feinberg suggests that a number of factors need to be taken into account when applying the offense principle, including: the extent, duration and social value of the speech, the ease with which it can be avoided, the motives of the speaker, the number of people offended, the intensity of the offense, and the general interest of the community at large.[36]

Kurt Westergaard, a Danish cartoonist, created the controversial cartoon of the Islamic prophet Muhammad wearing a bomb in his turban and, because he expressed his opinion, he met with strong violent reactions from Muslims worldwide, including Western countries. Westergaard has even received numerous death threats and murder attempts from Muslims. Even though he used his right of freedom of speech, since he lives in a society where this right exists, he was harassed by another culture which is very limited to accept another point of view.[39]

Westergaard's free speech rights were violated not by the government but by Muslim jihadists who are targeting him for punishment, just like the PC Nazis do here in the USA.

 

[hipeter924]

Stand up against discrimination? lololololol, you people ARE the hustlers who push the discrimination that is most often encountered in this country today; against white heterosexual males.

Show me the federal office holder that advocates a theocracy[insults, raving,etc]

But Liberty Counsel is far from alone in ignoring the First Amendment. ThinkProgress reported yesterday that senate hopeful Rep. Paul Broun (R-GA) said during an interview with the Tea Party Express he will only vote for bills he thinks fit “Judeo-Christian Biblical principles.”

BROUN: I do go against my leadership all the time because I stand firm on the four questions that I ask about all legislation. The first, is it constitutional according to the original intent? The second, does it fit the Judeo-Christian Biblical principles that our nation is founded upon? Third, do we need it? Fourth, can we afford it? If all four yes, I vote yes, otherwise I vote no.

Ted Cruz Meeting David Lane's Religious Test For The Presidency | Right Wing Watch
And that is just one. The US wasn't founded on religion, instead secularism and religious freedom i.e. no one religion controls the government.

Lol, yeah the SCOTUS walks on water as long as you PC Nazis agree with them, then rale against their corruption and 'old white men' when you disagree.

I am not a Democrat, but keeping going with this 'if someone disagrees with me, they must support Obama' argument.

Go fuck off.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Stand up against discrimination? lololololol, you people ARE the hustlers who push the discrimination that is most often encountered in this country today; against white heterosexual males.

Show me the federal office holder that advocates a theocracy[insults, raving,etc]

Ted Cruz Meeting David Lane's Religious Test For The Presidency | Right Wing Watch
And that is just one. The US wasn't founded on religion, instead secularism and religious freedom i.e. no one religion controls the government.

Lol, yeah the SCOTUS walks on water as long as you PC Nazis agree with them, then rale against their corruption and 'old white men' when you disagree.

I am not a Democrat, but keeping going with this 'if someone disagrees with me, they must support Obama' argument.

Go fuck off.

Lol, passing laws in step with religious beliefs does not constitute a theocracy, moron.

 

[hipeter924]

Lol, passing laws in step with religious beliefs does not constitute a theocracy, moron.

It does, if those laws are religion based, rather than based on secular arguments i.e. like laws against evolution, same-sex marriage, and abortion - which impose religion on the non-religious and those that don't follow the favored religion.

 

[bodecea]

You May Do A Double-Take When You Hear What An MSNBC Host Say What Tolerance Means to Liberals



Nazis to the core of their being.

Still smarting that you confederate yokels got you asses handed to you , too bad generals like Sherman didn't finish the job once an for all back then

So you would have preferred it if Sherman had exterminated the entire population of Georgia and South Carolina - maybe setup a few death camps?

Maybe it might have been better in the long run.......

































j/k

 

[Pogo]

Nazis to the core of their being.

They can only be Nazis or Communists, not both, when will you decide? Truth is that MSNBC is neither, it is just a media corporation like any other, with a goal to make money - hardly 'Communist' or 'Nazi' as it just a business. If you don't like MSNBC, don't watch, as no one is forcing you (the same rule should be applied to Fox News).

Nazi's and "commies", are both collectivist totalitarian based systems of government. Thus they are fundamentally the same.

Oh god, the Hysterian speaks. Uh, I mean historian. Yeah that's why Hitler fought, imprisoned and railed against them. Because he saw them as "the same thing".

 

[Pogo]

What the fuck does this have to do with "freedom of speech"?

My thought exactly, although Slowie's not the sharpest knife so I can't say it surprises me. Any more.

 

[whitehall]

Didn't Hitler and Stalin teach modern society anything? Once lefties get into power they become tyrants who promote their own brand of intolerance.

 

[Pogo]

Which this do you refer to?

I mean the story in your OP doesn't match your thread title.

The OP has nothing to do with "freedom of speech".

Jonathan Capehart replied:

"Tolerance, no, is not – it should not be a two-way street. It’s a one-way street. "

How can tolerance be a 'one-way street' and NOT be about freedom of speech for those going the wrong way in the libtard perspective?

"Tolerance" (or intolerance) isn't the same thing as "censorship".
Disapproving of what someone says is one thing; you'd have to move to the realm of preventing them from saying it in the first place to involve "freedom of speech".

What you seem to be implying is that disapproval should be censored. Which is ironic considering where you thought you started.

So in that sense perhaps the "Nazi" is in the mirror.

 

[Pogo]

Tolerance is a one way street? And what 'way' would that be? According the idiot who said it, his way, his terms. Do all leftists think like this? Don't answer, that was rhetorical.

Tolerance:

the ability or willingness to tolerate something, in particular the existence of opinions or behavior that one does not necessarily agree with.


Leftists fail time and again to exhibit tolerance. Instead, when someone says they don't believe in ssm or don't agree with the president's policies, the left screams 'homophobe!' 'racist!' or some other term (watch, if Hil becomes president the screams will be 'sexist!' and 'ageist!'), which reinforces to everyone their lack of tolerance. Buncha hypocrites and liars. They don't show tolerance, they don't want tolerance, they want nothing less than full acceptance. Our way or the highway, as it were.

Whatever. Still doesn't have jack shit to do with "freedom of speech".
Which I have to infer what he really means is "approval of speech".

 

[hipeter924]

Didn't Hitler and Stalin teach modern society anything? Once lefties get into power they become tyrants who promote their own brand of intolerance.

'Left wing' and 'right wing' are artificial barriers when it comes to totalitarianism.

Nazis are 'right-wing' if you are actually using the term 'left' to describe Nazis. But that is incorrect on both counts i.e. that an artificial location on a political spectrum determines how totalitarian a movement is, or that you can equate democratic socialist movements and anarchist-communists with Soviet terror or Nazism - both groups were killed by the Nazis and Stalin (in the case of the Nazis under the enabling act, and in the case of the USSR during the Russian Revolution and the purges over the years).

 

[Pogo]

You nailed it.

But the question nagging me at the moment is this; 'Are the resident libtards really that stupid that they cant see the point?

Or is their hypocrisy so deep and broad that they know no bounds to what they can fake and posture about?

These PC Nazis are going to have a short and very dark ten to twenty years and then either they lose power or the system will fail and we will have a new society and government in replacement of it.

They don't care that they are hypocrites, they don't care that they are liars, they only care about having things be their way. They will accept nothing less than acceptance. They spout tolerance but do not practice it while at the same time denigrating anyone who is anything less than accepting. They want equality but continually bring up race and sexuality. Equality would be no BET, equality would be talking about Michale Sam without the "first openly gay football player" prefacing everything. They want equality on their terms. Period.

Joanna Lohman and Lianne Sanderson: Everyone Wants to Be Accepted : People.com

True, and it is a disservce to the public. I dont care one bit if Obama is the first black President or Hitlary the first woman Pres, or if Yellen is the first woman head of the Federal Reserve. That talk obscures their POLICIES, their accomplishments and intentions.

Their race and gender are irrelevant to every0one except the race hustlers and libtards.

Those are called "stats".

They use 'em in baseball. First guy to hit two home runs in one inning, first Japanese second baseman, whatever. Nobody seems to have a problem with it there.

You have a problem with, say, Jackie Robinson?

Demographic stats like first black/female/whatever are a way we measure our own social progress. Jackie Robinson measures how long it took baseball to get out from under its "gentlemen's agreement" and serves as a reminder of the shame of that obloquy. It's a moral compass. Gives us a benchmark to measure how long it took to achieve that particular goal.

So you have a problem with social progress?

Ooooh wait...... I think I see your point now.

 

[jillian]

Nazis to the core of their being.

They can only be Nazis or Communists, not both, when will you decide? Truth is that MSNBC is neither, it is just a media corporation like any other, with a goal to make money - hardly 'Communist' or 'Nazi' as it just a business. If you don't like MSNBC, don't watch, as no one is forcing you (the same rule should be applied to Fox News).

Nazi's and "commies", are both collectivist totalitarian based systems of government. Thus they are fundamentally the same.

words, and political concepts, have meaning. MSNBC is neither communist nor nazi. and frankly, encouraging the flame bait of this o/p should be discouraged.

 

[Pogo]

Jonathan Capehart replied:

"Tolerance, no, is not – it should not be a two-way street. It’s a one-way street. "

How can tolerance be a 'one-way street' and NOT be about freedom of speech for those going the wrong way in the libtard perspective?

And I am not talking about the very narrow legalistic perspective o free speech vrs government infringement of rights.

I am talking about social norms that tolerate someone simply expressing a point of view that is main stream to their religion and those who hate the religion then using shout down tactics, boycott extortion and terrorism to silence that sector of the population.

I am speaking of freedom of speech in its broadest social sense, fuck the god damned lawyers and what centuries of accumulated case law barnacle encrustation has to say.

So, rather than "freedom of speech" in terms of the law, you're saying that people who are mean to you shouldn't be allowed to speak?

You have the freedom of speech to say whatever you want. So does the idiot host on MSNBC. It's really not that fucking complicated.

And what I am saying is not that fucking complicated either.

Here I will type slowly so you can keep up.

1) You can say whatever you want, it is your opinion, fine by me. If I disagree I will say so.

2) IF I say what I think is valid I expect the same response. I object when PC Nazis start protests to take away my speech rights, or pass laws criminalizing sermons if they say that homosexual butt fucking is immoral, or who blackmail companies with threats of boycotts to get me fired for saying whatever the hell I want if it is not violent or inciting violence.

3) I don't necessarily agree with what you say, but I respect your right to say it, and I expect you to reciprocate that right. The idiot PC Nazi was saying that no, you and I don't have the right to express our opinions unless it passes his ideology test first. He says you should be subject to any form of coercion, harassment or threats he can bring to bear to shut you up. Unless you are a fucking idiot you should find that disconcerning to say the least.

Fuck him, and fuck the rest of these Nazi bastards.

This is another issue that will rip this country apart of the libtards get 8 more years to press it into normalcy.

This is not a negotiable issue. Period.

Your head is not a negotiable issue, because that's not what they said; it's what you plugged in yourself.

As I said --- look in the mirror. There's your issue.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Lol, passing laws in step with religious beliefs does not constitute a theocracy, moron.

It does, if those laws are religion based, rather than based on secular arguments i.e. like laws against evolution, same-sex marriage, and abortion - which impose religion on the non-religious and those that don't follow the favored religion.

lol, you don't know what a theocracy is, stupid shit

 

[JimBowie1958]

Didn't Hitler and Stalin teach modern society anything? Once lefties get into power they become tyrants who promote their own brand of intolerance.

One of their few steady consistencies since the Jacobins slaughtered the French like dogs in the street.

 

[JimBowie1958]

They can only be Nazis or Communists, not both, when will you decide? Truth is that MSNBC is neither, it is just a media corporation like any other, with a goal to make money - hardly 'Communist' or 'Nazi' as it just a business. If you don't like MSNBC, don't watch, as no one is forcing you (the same rule should be applied to Fox News).

Nazi's and "commies", are both collectivist totalitarian based systems of government. Thus they are fundamentally the same.

words, and political concepts, have meaning. MSNBC is neither communist nor nazi. and frankly, encouraging the flame bait of this o/p should be discouraged.

Mussolini was a communist prior to starting fascism, and his only beef with the commies was that they were internationalists instead of nationalists, and Mussolini thought it more efficient to control corporations instead of destroying them.

Now that corporations have co-opted everything and the chicoms have embraced nationalism once again, the revival of fascism is well achieved.

With PC Nazis like the ones that took out Eich and Paula Deen, we have the full blown Nazis here in the USA.

Facts hurt, but suck it anyway, pig.

 

[JimBowie1958]

They can only be Nazis or Communists, not both, when will you decide? Truth is that MSNBC is neither, it is just a media corporation like any other, with a goal to make money - hardly 'Communist' or 'Nazi' as it just a business. If you don't like MSNBC, don't watch, as no one is forcing you (the same rule should be applied to Fox News).

Nazi's and "commies", are both collectivist totalitarian based systems of government. Thus they are fundamentally the same.

Oh god, the Hysterian speaks. Uh, I mean historian. Yeah that's why Hitler fought, imprisoned and railed against them. Because he saw them as "the same thing".

He saw them as rivals who went after the same gullible fools as the commies did, ass hole. Documented FACT.