The Value of Free Speech

[Quantum Windbag]

Seems to me that most rw's flip their lid and start calling names instead of debating. The first words out of keyboard is idiot or moron when confronted with the truth.

It seems t me that most people do that, and then whinge about it. If you weren't part of the problem, and a racist asshole, maybe everyone wouldn't be calling you names.

Thats pretty much a lie. I know I don't do that. You may not agree with what I say but I dont call people out of their names just because I dont agree. You will get called a name if I'm in the mood and you called me one first. You are part of the problem and you also say some racist things. Stop thinking you have all the answers and do no wrong.

You just did.

 

[Asclepias]

It is showing clear evidence that there was an organized, top down, conspiracy at the IRS to target groups based on the political beliefs. Funny thing, Obama doesn't seem to care any more than you do. I expected that though, he already proved he is willing to use the government to attack speech.

No it is not. It is an effort by a nutter Congressman to take an Erik Erikson claim and turn it into an oversight committee hearing.

Clear evidence? Really? You think that had clear evidence? Man.......that is sad.

Quite simple. When you have Lois Lerner claiming the 5th in her congressional hearing, you know it was organized from the top down. Now if it were Rachel Maddow or some other Liberal personality touting this evidence you reject so soundly, would you accept it or acknowledge it?

I thought the taking the 5th was a persons right to not self incriminate? Did they change it to say "and not incriminate your superiors"?

 

[TemplarKormac]

When the President of the United States goes to the UN and gives a speech where he calls a video an "Insult to America" because it offended a religion that is the government, your government, going exactly what you just said doesn't happen. As I recall, you defended that. (I might be wrong, but I will not apologize on the off chance I am. If you didn't defend it, and feel it necessary, feel free to prove it. If you want to demand an apology without proof, fuck off.)

That was a great statement there....the part in parenthesis. Really something. It really puts your keen sense of fair play on display. Great job.

I don't know what the fuck you are talking about.

What I think is that you suddenly became very sensitive to potentially losing your right to free speech after November, 2008. I think your fears are partisan in nature.

And....as I cannot forget that you have stated that you would support Sarah Palin as the leader of this nation, I have difficulty taking you seriously. I know...different topic....but it stays with you.

If I am wrong, prove it, and I will apologize. If, on the other hand, you just want to act insulted and demand an apology, fuck off. How is that not fair? Is the real problem here that I called you out, and then short circuited your tactics before you could employ them?

It doesn't matter if you would support Palin, what matters is if you will state that you do not support Obama when he is wrong.

By the way, as I have said countless times, I am not a Republican, which explains why your support of a theoretical President Palin doesn't impress me. I would be just as hard on her as I am Obama.

That's the problem. It suddenly becomes "not fair" for a liberal when a superior argument is posited. They then soon demand an apology for being oh so offended by it.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

No it is not. It is an effort by a nutter Congressman to take an Erik Erikson claim and turn it into an oversight committee hearing.

Clear evidence? Really? You think that had clear evidence? Man.......that is sad.

Quite simple. When you have Lois Lerner claiming the 5th in her congressional hearing, you know it was organized from the top down. Now if it were Rachel Maddow or some other Liberal personality touting this evidence you reject so soundly, would you accept it or acknowledge it?

I thought the taking the 5th was a persons right to not self incriminate? Did they change it to say "and not incriminate your superiors"?

It is their right, what's your point?

 

[Asclepias]

Quite simple. When you have Lois Lerner claiming the 5th in her congressional hearing, you know it was organized from the top down. Now if it were Rachel Maddow or some other Liberal personality touting this evidence you reject so soundly, would you accept it or acknowledge it?

I thought the taking the 5th was a persons right to not self incriminate? Did they change it to say "and not incriminate your superiors"?

It is their right, what's your point?

My point is that its not "clear evidence". You have to actually have some evidence for it to be clear correct?

 

[LoneLaugher]

When the President of the United States goes to the UN and gives a speech where he calls a video an "Insult to America" because it offended a religion that is the government, your government, going exactly what you just said doesn't happen. As I recall, you defended that. (I might be wrong, but I will not apologize on the off chance I am. If you didn't defend it, and feel it necessary, feel free to prove it. If you want to demand an apology without proof, fuck off.)

That was a great statement there....the part in parenthesis. Really something. It really puts your keen sense of fair play on display. Great job.

I don't know what the fuck you are talking about.

What I think is that you suddenly became very sensitive to potentially losing your right to free speech after November, 2008. I think your fears are partisan in nature.

And....as I cannot forget that you have stated that you would support Sarah Palin as the leader of this nation, I have difficulty taking you seriously. I know...different topic....but it stays with you.

If I am wrong, prove it, and I will apologize. If, on the other hand, you just want to act insulted and demand an apology, fuck off. How is that not fair? Is the real problem here that I called you out, and then short circuited your tactics before you could employ them?

It doesn't matter if you would support Palin, what matters is if you will state that you do not support Obama when he is wrong.

By the way, as I have said countless times, I am not a Republican, which explains why your support of a theoretical President Palin doesn't impress me. I would be just as hard on her as I am Obama.

OK....try this.

I have, on many occasions here, expressed my displeasure with things that president Obama has done and said. On more than a few occasions I have clearly stated opposition to a policy or action that the Obama administration has carried out.

Don't believe it? Go to the archives and prove me wrong. Or fuck off!

That was cute, wasn't it?

You called me out for defending a speech of Obama's that I have no idea if I even heard....and you think I am offended? Idiot...I was just commenting on your assinine challenge. It was odd. The odd part was when you said you WOULD NOT APOLOGIZE if you were wrong. Was that a mistake?

You support Palin. Your party affiliation is meaningless. I am not a registered Democrat, you know.

Supporting Palin for filling any important post is a sign of intellectual weakness. Yiu cannot escape that fact. Sorry.

 

[TemplarKormac]

No it is not. It is an effort by a nutter Congressman to take an Erik Erikson claim and turn it into an oversight committee hearing.

Clear evidence? Really? You think that had clear evidence? Man.......that is sad.

Quite simple. When you have Lois Lerner claiming the 5th in her congressional hearing, you know it was organized from the top down. Now if it were Rachel Maddow or some other Liberal personality touting this evidence you reject so soundly, would you accept it or acknowledge it?

I thought the taking the 5th was a persons right to not self incriminate? Did they change it to say "and not incriminate your superiors"?

Uh yeah? Your point? She was part of the whole scam so she is just as much at fault as her superiors.

 

[Asclepias]

It seems t me that most people do that, and then whinge about it. If you weren't part of the problem, and a racist asshole, maybe everyone wouldn't be calling you names.

Thats pretty much a lie. I know I don't do that. You may not agree with what I say but I dont call people out of their names just because I dont agree. You will get called a name if I'm in the mood and you called me one first. You are part of the problem and you also say some racist things. Stop thinking you have all the answers and do no wrong.

You just did.

Responded to you calling me a racist asshole?

 

[LoneLaugher]

That was a great statement there....the part in parenthesis. Really something. It really puts your keen sense of fair play on display. Great job.

I don't know what the fuck you are talking about.

What I think is that you suddenly became very sensitive to potentially losing your right to free speech after November, 2008. I think your fears are partisan in nature.

And....as I cannot forget that you have stated that you would support Sarah Palin as the leader of this nation, I have difficulty taking you seriously. I know...different topic....but it stays with you.

If I am wrong, prove it, and I will apologize. If, on the other hand, you just want to act insulted and demand an apology, fuck off. How is that not fair? Is the real problem here that I called you out, and then short circuited your tactics before you could employ them?

It doesn't matter if you would support Palin, what matters is if you will state that you do not support Obama when he is wrong.

By the way, as I have said countless times, I am not a Republican, which explains why your support of a theoretical President Palin doesn't impress me. I would be just as hard on her as I am Obama.

That's the problem. It suddenly becomes "not fair" for a liberal when a superior argument is posited. They then soon demand an apology for being oh so offended by it.

You asshole. I have never demanded an apology from anyone here. You need to learn how to read.

 

[TemplarKormac]

I thought the taking the 5th was a persons right to not self incriminate? Did they change it to say "and not incriminate your superiors"?

It is their right, what's your point?

My point is that its not "clear evidence". You have to actually have some evidence for it to be clear correct?

She knew there was evidence, otherwise she wouldn't have pleaded the 5th, Asclepias. Nor would the IRS have issued a public apology for targeting conservative 501 (c)(3) organizations.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I thought the taking the 5th was a persons right to not self incriminate? Did they change it to say "and not incriminate your superiors"?

It is their right, what's your point?

My point is that its not "clear evidence". You have to actually have some evidence for it to be clear correct?

Correct.

‘Taking the 5th’ does not constitute ‘evidence,’ nor does it in any way implicate ‘higher ups.’

It is evidence, however, of a desperate rightwing fishing expedition.

 

[LoneLaugher]

It is their right, what's your point?

My point is that its not "clear evidence". You have to actually have some evidence for it to be clear correct?

Correct.

‘Taking the 5th’ does not constitute ‘evidence,’ nor does it in any way implicate ‘higher ups.’

It is evidence, however, of a desperate rightwing fishing expedition.

Let us not lose sight of what QW originally claimed was clear evidence.

It was the pablum spewed on Stockman's website. It was not some testimony or plea in a court of law or a Congressional hearing.

It was a nutter Congressman's fucking website.

Off to celebrate my 49th with the family.......see you all later.

In my honor....please speak truth at least until I return.

Thanks!

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

It is their right, what's your point?

My point is that its not "clear evidence". You have to actually have some evidence for it to be clear correct?

She knew there was evidence, otherwise she wouldn't have pleaded the 5th, Asclepias. Nor would the IRS have issued a public apology for targeting conservative 501 (c)(3) organizations.

Nonsense.

Invoking the right to not self-incriminate pertains to that individual, where one cannot be compelled to disclose evidence that might be used against him in a criminal proceeding.

It is not evidence that the individual is involved in, or attempting to conceal, a ‘conspiracy.’

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

My point is that its not "clear evidence". You have to actually have some evidence for it to be clear correct?

Correct.

‘Taking the 5th’ does not constitute ‘evidence,’ nor does it in any way implicate ‘higher ups.’

It is evidence, however, of a desperate rightwing fishing expedition.

Let us not lose sight of what QW originally claimed was clear evidence.

It was the pablum spewed on Stockman's website. It was not some testimony or plea in a court of law or a Congressional hearing.

It was a nutter Congressman's fucking website.

Off to celebrate my 49th with the family.......see you all later.

In my honor....please speak truth at least until I return.

Thanks!

Of course not.

It’s just more of the right’s pathetic attempt to contrive a ‘conspiracy’ involving Obama where no such conspiracy exists.

 

[TemplarKormac]

My point is that its not "clear evidence". You have to actually have some evidence for it to be clear correct?

She knew there was evidence, otherwise she wouldn't have pleaded the 5th, Asclepias. Nor would the IRS have issued a public apology for targeting conservative 501 (c)(3) organizations.

Nonsense.

Invoking the right to not self-incriminate pertains to that individual, where one cannot be compelled to disclose evidence that might be used against him in a criminal proceeding.

It is not evidence that the individual is involved in, or attempting to conceal, a ‘conspiracy.’

So what are you trying to prove exactly? If you're pleading the 5th, its basically confession of guilt. Anywho, if you want to continue making a futile case:

Emails show IRS official Lerner involved in Tea Party screening | Fox News

Embattled IRS official Lois Lerner appeared to be deeply involved in scrutinizing the applications of Tea Party groups for tax-exempt status, according to newly released emails that further challenge the claim the targeting was the work of rogue Ohio-based employees.

One curious February 2011 email from Lerner said, "Tea Party Matter very dangerous" -- before going on to warn that the "matter" could be used to go to court to test campaign spending limits.

Much of the email, released along with others by the House Ways and Means Committee, is redacted, so the full context is not clear.

Lois Lerner emails: Is the IRS scandal back?

 

[thereisnospoon]

Psssssst I think your ignore feature is malfunctioning.

I am surprised that you showed your face today after that great thread that you started this morning. You sure are a critical thinker, ain't ya?

It is not arrogance. I am simply informing you that liberals are all about our freedoms and our liberty. We will take the steps necessary to protect them if they are threatened.

Were you out job hunting or were you doing cosplay all day?

"Our" freedoms..."OUR" liberty...
Yes....for liberals only.
Your steps are well documented. Impugning, making baseless accusations, shouting down..Anything to stop debate or the exchange of ideas.

Seems to me that most rw's flip their lid and start calling names instead of debating. The first words out of keyboard is idiot or moron when confronted with the truth.

"Seems".....Out of touch with reality.
Would you like some examples? Or do you think you should stand down and avoid the embarrassment?

 

[thereisnospoon]

Seems to me that most rw's flip their lid and start calling names instead of debating. The first words out of keyboard is idiot or moron when confronted with the truth.

It seems t me that most people do that, and then whinge about it. If you weren't part of the problem, and a racist asshole, maybe everyone wouldn't be calling you names.

Thats pretty much a lie. I know I don't do that. You may not agree with what I say but I dont call people out of their names just because I dont agree. You will get called a name if I'm in the mood and you called me one first. You are part of the problem and you also say some racist things. Stop thinking you have all the answers and do no wrong.

So you believe it is within your purview to lash out at people when you're 'in the mood"?
You think you get to choose when civility is appropriate all by yourself? As though no one else has a choice?
Typical lib arrogance.

 

[thereisnospoon]

No it is not. It is an effort by a nutter Congressman to take an Erik Erikson claim and turn it into an oversight committee hearing.

Clear evidence? Really? You think that had clear evidence? Man.......that is sad.

Quite simple. When you have Lois Lerner claiming the 5th in her congressional hearing, you know it was organized from the top down. Now if it were Rachel Maddow or some other Liberal personality touting this evidence you reject so soundly, would you accept it or acknowledge it?

I thought the taking the 5th was a persons right to not self incriminate? Did they change it to say "and not incriminate your superiors"?

Lerner had no right to plead the 5th. She was not on trial.
She deliberately withheld testimony from Congress. She knew what she was doing was in direct violation of IRS rules, yet she hid behind a right that did not apply.
She could have been charged with a crime.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I thought the taking the 5th was a persons right to not self incriminate? Did they change it to say "and not incriminate your superiors"?

It is their right, what's your point?

My point is that its not "clear evidence". You have to actually have some evidence for it to be clear correct?

I never said that was the evidence, did I?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

That was a great statement there....the part in parenthesis. Really something. It really puts your keen sense of fair play on display. Great job.

I don't know what the fuck you are talking about.

What I think is that you suddenly became very sensitive to potentially losing your right to free speech after November, 2008. I think your fears are partisan in nature.

And....as I cannot forget that you have stated that you would support Sarah Palin as the leader of this nation, I have difficulty taking you seriously. I know...different topic....but it stays with you.

If I am wrong, prove it, and I will apologize. If, on the other hand, you just want to act insulted and demand an apology, fuck off. How is that not fair? Is the real problem here that I called you out, and then short circuited your tactics before you could employ them?

It doesn't matter if you would support Palin, what matters is if you will state that you do not support Obama when he is wrong.

By the way, as I have said countless times, I am not a Republican, which explains why your support of a theoretical President Palin doesn't impress me. I would be just as hard on her as I am Obama.

OK....try this.

I have, on many occasions here, expressed my displeasure with things that president Obama has done and said. On more than a few occasions I have clearly stated opposition to a policy or action that the Obama administration has carried out.

Don't believe it? Go to the archives and prove me wrong. Or fuck off!

That was cute, wasn't it?

You called me out for defending a speech of Obama's that I have no idea if I even heard....and you think I am offended? Idiot...I was just commenting on your assinine challenge. It was odd. The odd part was when you said you WOULD NOT APOLOGIZE if you were wrong. Was that a mistake?

You support Palin. Your party affiliation is meaningless. I am not a registered Democrat, you know.

Supporting Palin for filling any important post is a sign of intellectual weakness. Yiu cannot escape that fact. Sorry.

I don't give a fuck about that right now, I am talking about a single instance when he claimed that free speech was the exact opposite of what America stands for. My recollection is that you supported him in that. You can deflect all day long, but right now the issue is free speech. I must be right about it because, instead of saying he is wrong, you are attacking me for supporting Palin.