Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
If you don't have the intellectual honesty to admit the obvious, why in the world would I bother with you?Are you admitting that you just tried a straw man, and that I shoved it in your face?And USMB's King of the Straw Man is back.Macmuffin believes that you're a regressive if you don't believe that a racist should have the right to call in a bomb threat to a black church. Seriously reprehensible.
.
Tell me EXACTLY what you disagree with of what I've said on the topic of this thread.
If you will admit that, we can continue.
.
No, I'm pointing out that you called me your lame pet prejorative 'regressive' because I've taken the position that free speech should not be unlimited.
If you don't have the intellectual honesty to admit the obvious, why in the world would I bother with you?Are you admitting that you just tried a straw man, and that I shoved it in your face?And USMB's King of the Straw Man is back.Macmuffin believes that you're a regressive if you don't believe that a racist should have the right to call in a bomb threat to a black church. Seriously reprehensible.
.
Tell me EXACTLY what you disagree with of what I've said on the topic of this thread.
If you will admit that, we can continue.
.
No, I'm pointing out that you called me your lame pet prejorative 'regressive' because I've taken the position that free speech should not be unlimited.
.
Ah, you think you've "won" something again.If you don't have the intellectual honesty to admit the obvious, why in the world would I bother with you?Are you admitting that you just tried a straw man, and that I shoved it in your face?And USMB's King of the Straw Man is back.
.
Tell me EXACTLY what you disagree with of what I've said on the topic of this thread.
If you will admit that, we can continue.
.
No, I'm pointing out that you called me your lame pet prejorative 'regressive' because I've taken the position that free speech should not be unlimited.
.
That's exactly the same sort of childish horseshit you spew whenever you've lost the argument.
harmful how?How many here don't believe that the GOVERNMENT should have the power in any capacity to act against speech that is harmful?
Seems to me that if speech is ACTUALLY harmful, it isnt "free"
Ah, you think you've "won" something again.If you don't have the intellectual honesty to admit the obvious, why in the world would I bother with you?Are you admitting that you just tried a straw man, and that I shoved it in your face?Tell me EXACTLY what you disagree with of what I've said on the topic of this thread.
If you will admit that, we can continue.
.
No, I'm pointing out that you called me your lame pet prejorative 'regressive' because I've taken the position that free speech should not be unlimited.
.
That's exactly the same sort of childish horseshit you spew whenever you've lost the argument.
Well good for you.
Speaking of "childish".
.
A normal, rational person knows that even freedom of speech must come with some level of restrictions, it is not absolute.harmful how?How many here don't believe that the GOVERNMENT should have the power in any capacity to act against speech that is harmful?
Seems to me that if speech is ACTUALLY harmful, it isnt "free"
I realize how important my opinion is to you.Ah, you think you've "won" something again.If you don't have the intellectual honesty to admit the obvious, why in the world would I bother with you?Are you admitting that you just tried a straw man, and that I shoved it in your face?
If you will admit that, we can continue.
.
No, I'm pointing out that you called me your lame pet prejorative 'regressive' because I've taken the position that free speech should not be unlimited.
.
That's exactly the same sort of childish horseshit you spew whenever you've lost the argument.
Well good for you.
Speaking of "childish".
.
Why do you run away from the topic so often?
Why don't you tell everyone here what exactly I've said that was 'regressive',
since that was your accusation.
harmful how?How many here don't believe that the GOVERNMENT should have the power in any capacity to act against speech that is harmful?
Seems to me that if speech is ACTUALLY harmful, it isnt "free"
That's a circular argument. Your #1 choice was 'any' speech, not speech that isn't harmful.
And, bingo.harmful how?How many here don't believe that the GOVERNMENT should have the power in any capacity to act against speech that is harmful?
Seems to me that if speech is ACTUALLY harmful, it isnt "free"
That's a circular argument. Your #1 choice was 'any' speech, not speech that isn't harmful.
What do you mean by harmful?
I don't think that firing would be permissible even in an employment at will state, where without a contract you can be fired for no stated reason.You have the right to rent a billboard along a busy freeway with your picture on it with the message:Baloney. Free speech rights are the rights to speech and NOT be punished for it. You're talking nonsense.
"Hi. I am NYCarbineer. I work for Toyota, but I hate those bastards. Those slant-eyed Japs build shitty cars. Don't buy Toyota autos."
Would Toyota be "punishing" you for your free speech if they fired you?
No. Toyota would be getting rid of an employee who is fucking up their business. HUGE difference.
So if your company fired you for owning a gun that's no violation of your right to own a gun?
And I wonder if the Regressives would consider "trying to convince as many Americans as possible that their President is an insane, out of control, white supremacist" might be considered "harmful"?harmful how?How many here don't believe that the GOVERNMENT should have the power in any capacity to act against speech that is harmful?
Seems to me that if speech is ACTUALLY harmful, it isnt "free"
That's a circular argument. Your #1 choice was 'any' speech, not speech that isn't harmful.
What do you mean by harmful?
And, bingo.harmful how?How many here don't believe that the GOVERNMENT should have the power in any capacity to act against speech that is harmful?
Seems to me that if speech is ACTUALLY harmful, it isnt "free"
That's a circular argument. Your #1 choice was 'any' speech, not speech that isn't harmful.
What do you mean by harmful?
That's how they do it.
They'll expand the term to cover any speech they don't like.
.
oooohhhhhh good one manAnd I wonder if the Regressives would consider "trying to convince as many Americans as possible that their President is an insane, out of control, white supremacist" might be considered "harmful"?harmful how?How many here don't believe that the GOVERNMENT should have the power in any capacity to act against speech that is harmful?
Seems to me that if speech is ACTUALLY harmful, it isnt "free"
That's a circular argument. Your #1 choice was 'any' speech, not speech that isn't harmful.
What do you mean by harmful?
.
And another straw man from USMB's King of the Straw Man.And, bingo.harmful how?How many here don't believe that the GOVERNMENT should have the power in any capacity to act against speech that is harmful?
Seems to me that if speech is ACTUALLY harmful, it isnt "free"
That's a circular argument. Your #1 choice was 'any' speech, not speech that isn't harmful.
What do you mean by harmful?
That's how they do it.
They'll expand the term to cover any speech they don't like.
.
I specified two examples of speech I would not 'like' to be protected. 1. Bomb threats 2. A schoolteacher ranting in class about 'fucking *******'.
That's why you called me 'regressive'. Because you don't agree with me.
TN''s entire schtick is baseless. There's been no changes to free speech legal analysis since the Sup Ct found burning a flag was protected speech.And, bingo.harmful how?How many here don't believe that the GOVERNMENT should have the power in any capacity to act against speech that is harmful?
Seems to me that if speech is ACTUALLY harmful, it isnt "free"
That's a circular argument. Your #1 choice was 'any' speech, not speech that isn't harmful.
What do you mean by harmful?
That's how they do it.
They'll expand the term to cover any speech they don't like.
.
And I wonder if the Regressives would consider "trying to convince as many Americans as possible that their President is an insane, out of control, white supremacist" might be considered "harmful"?harmful how?How many here don't believe that the GOVERNMENT should have the power in any capacity to act against speech that is harmful?
Seems to me that if speech is ACTUALLY harmful, it isnt "free"
That's a circular argument. Your #1 choice was 'any' speech, not speech that isn't harmful.
What do you mean by harmful?
.
And another straw man from USMB's King of the Straw Man.And, bingo.harmful how?
Seems to me that if speech is ACTUALLY harmful, it isnt "free"
That's a circular argument. Your #1 choice was 'any' speech, not speech that isn't harmful.
What do you mean by harmful?
That's how they do it.
They'll expand the term to cover any speech they don't like.
.
I specified two examples of speech I would not 'like' to be protected. 1. Bomb threats 2. A schoolteacher ranting in class about 'fucking *******'.
That's why you called me 'regressive'. Because you don't agree with me.
Just keep making shit up. Whatever makes you feel better about yourself.
No harm, no foul.
.
TN, NYC here says that you and don't want the government to have any authority whatsoever on speech.And I wonder if the Regressives would consider "trying to convince as many Americans as possible that their President is an insane, out of control, white supremacist" might be considered "harmful"?harmful how?How many here don't believe that the GOVERNMENT should have the power in any capacity to act against speech that is harmful?
Seems to me that if speech is ACTUALLY harmful, it isnt "free"
That's a circular argument. Your #1 choice was 'any' speech, not speech that isn't harmful.
What do you mean by harmful?
.
We have a CONSTITUTION and a GOVERNMENT to determine what is harmful. Harley doesn't want the government to have any such authority. Nor do you apparently.
