White-hating racists get Stormfront booted off the internet ! FIRST AMENMENT IS DEAD

[Faun]

Your plan was a waste of time. It doesn't reduce the debt, it adds to it as the spending cuts you suggest don't make up for the $2 trillion you'd be losing by eliminating income taxes and it relies on the Fair Tax which you yourself don't endorse. And of course, it's a fairy tail because eliminating income taxes is not on the radar.

My plan does not rely on the Fair Tax. It is a separate proposal. And my plan would save more than what is stolen via the income tax.

Let's talk turkey:

You claim to be in the upper income bracket in America, but here you are on a discussion board where - what fifty people might read this exchange IF you're lucky???

Who were you going to make believe that? Me or you?

You worry about that $2 TRILLION in income taxes. Where do you suppose they found the TRILLIONS to wage a silly ass war against foreigners - and build up the ultimate POLICE STATE in the process?

On that issue alone, I could have saved all that money and addressed 99 percent of the issues.

You shouldn't rattle my cage. You don't pack the gear to be in this discussion and trying to belittle others exposes the fact that you are not what you claim to be.

You want to cut the Department of Education. That saves little more than a $100b.

Department of Homeland Security, another $70b.

Another billion for the ATF.

Welfare, $370b...

All total, less than $600b. Far short of the $2t collected in income taxes. Great plan, you're now increasing the debt by another 1+ trillion dollars.

No wonder it's not on the table.

Blah, blah, blah. Cutting the size, power and scope of government raises taxes. Yeah right. I'm not wasting time playing your game. If I were going to have a battle of wits, I'd expect you to come armed. And simply put: You got nothing but criticisms because you have no original ideas.

LOL

Your idea is such a failure, it adds debt while eliminating most social services; and that's somehow my fault??

Eliminate social services? You need to get off the net. You are making yourself look terribly stupid. I can't fix that.

States can handle social services without the federal government adding more bureaucracies, middle men, and extra expenses. Your idiotic criticism are a colossal fail.

You really should push yourself away from the computer and get out into the real world.

You poor thing. Bless your heart. Everything I've said was in regards to federal spending/revenues.

Your plan failed. It increased the debt dramatically while eliminating social services.

 

[Humorme]

It was the domain name folks, not the host. ICANN used to be under US freedom of speech protection, but we gave it to corporations who now sell it out to the highest bidder.

The internet is no longer protected by free speech, it is no longer free (in the ideological aspect, not the financial one) get used to it, more people will be losing domain names they've held for decades, some of us have had one since the beginnings of the internet - now we risk losing that address if we say something someone else doesn't like. It's horrible.

So, a lot of people will leave the Internet and do things the old fashioned way. But, the people that defend the censorship didn't feel that way when they were on the receiving end.

I think freedom is paramount, and we're damned fools to have given away ICANN.

We're going to end up in a proverbial dark ages with our information being filtered and approved by foreign nations... It's only a matter of time before politics "buy" the domain registrars and start shutting down the opposition. That kind of scares the piss out of me to be honest >.<

The conspiracy theorists were right; it's only a matter of time before the internet becomes as biased and full of shit as the media, and perhaps even worse because there will be nothing but small isolated pockets with no voice who can speak the truth to the lies being spread. This nation is going to go socialist or communist mark my words. That also kind of scares the piss out of me to be honest >.< I don't' want my children, my grandchildren, to grow up in that shit; if I did I'd have left America already...

You can always begin petitioning Congress to go back to ICANN control of the net.

And, I'm with you. The amounts of control and America becoming a communist nation are fears that are about to be realized.

OTOH, I used to belong to the largest civilian militia in America. When the Internet came along, the anti-immigrant lobby came along and emptied the militias to become Internet champions of the world. People sat around and lobbying your Congresscritters went back to the lobbyists. Training hit an all time low. People sitting around their kitchen table, in restaurants, churches, etc. and actually discussing the world situation ceased.

The Internet created an aura of legitimacy for even the most idiotic people on the planet. Only on the Internet can you argue with people all day long while they claim to be in upper income brackets with a degree from Harvard only to find out they're 14, having trouble in school and their only contact with the outdoor world is whizzing people off on the Internet.

See this censorship as an opportunity. Stormfront and white racialists are booted off the Internet. Who were they recruiting? What were their accomplishments? Now, I'm finding out that the ADL is going to get to police You Tube. For years, the whites have done nothing except allow extremists with no real experience B.S. them on the Internet.

They fought the battle against the liberals tearing down the Confederate monuments and lost. Adding insult to injury, here in Georgia the liberals just put up a statue of Martin Luther King, Jr in the state Capitol. This whole Internet hoopla is doing nothing except causing the right to be dominated by inept idiots whose strategies are destroying the Republic.

Think of this as an opportunity... an opportunity to get out and meet people; a chance to read books; the excuse you need to actually go out and meet your elected representatives and tell them how you feel. You can be much more effective WITHOUT the Internet.

Let the left build their own Hell on earth.

 

[WinterBorn]

A privately owned website provider has decided they don't want to be associated with the trash that populated stormfront. The members of that group still have freedom of speech. But the 1st amendment does not guarantee access to someone else's property.

There is something I love about that argument. It cannot stand scrutiny.

If the First Amendment does not guarantee access to someone else's property, tell me how a gay couple has the right to force a private business to make a cake for a gay wedding.

Where, may I ask are the baker's rights?

When it's convenient, some people argue that whites have no rights. But, when the other side of the coin is presented, whites are somehow locked out on the SAME grounds the whites used when they tried to protect themselves. Funny how that works.

First of all, the case with the bakers had nothing to do with the 1st Amendment.

Second of all, the bakers lost because of anti-discrimination laws for businesses open to the public.

 

[WinterBorn]

A privately owned website provider has decided they don't want to be associated with the trash that populated stormfront. The members of that group still have freedom of speech. But the 1st amendment does not guarantee access to someone else's property.

If the webhoster banned a liberal site because of content, you would be howling about the first amendment. THINK, hater.

Bullshit. I would be saying the same thing. And I have said the same thing consistently.

 

[EverCurious]

Humorme So basically you do not agree with freedom of speech/belief/opinion on the internet. Sorry bud, I'm on the other end of the web from that ideology. I'm an American who's had the freedom to say and think as I damn well wish my entire life, I have no desire to be word and thought policed by idiots who get offended by fucking banana peels. I expect people to be responsible for their own feelings and opinions - which means if you get "terrified" by banana peels bummer, learn to deal.

Kind of like I have a legit phobia of needles and bees - I'm not out there saying folks can't talk about that shit, even though it does make me exceptionally uncomfortable, to the point of squealing like a little girl (at the age of fucking 43.) There is no way in hell I'd expect anyone else to understand much less "cater" to my personal and individual phobia; even if it was a rational thing to fear.

Whatever, why don't you freedom haters leave America? There are nations where they monitor everything said and nothing offensive is allowed, why not go there instead of trying to make America ditch freedom of speech/opinion/thought? ~sigh~

 

[Faun]

Humorme So basically you do not agree with freedom of speech/belief/opinion on the internet. Sorry bud, I'm on the other end of the web from that ideology. I'm an American who's had the freedom to say and think as I damn well wish my entire life, I have no desire to be word and thought policed by idiots who get offended by fucking banana peels. I expect people to be responsible for their own feelings and opinions - which means if you get "terrified" by banana peels bummer, learn to deal.

Kind of like I have a legit phobia of needles and bees - I'm not out there saying folks can't talk about that shit, even though it does make me exceptionally uncomfortable, to the point of squealing like a little girl (at the age of fucking 43.) There is no way in hell I'd expect anyone else to understand much less "cater" to my personal and individual phobia; even if it was a rational thing to fear.

Whatever, why don't you freedom haters leave America? There are nations where they monitor everything said and nothing offensive is allowed, why not go there instead of trying to make America ditch freedom of speech/opinion/thought? ~sigh~

I don't know the specifics about stormfront, but I know that Cloudflare dropped the dailystormer following allegations that people on the dailystormer were falsely claiming that cloudflare secretly supported them. That was the reason Cloudflare dropped them following the death of Heather Heyer.

Cloudflare is s private company which provides webhosting services. How is it not within their right to terminate service with a customer who is committing libel against them?

 

[Humorme]

A privately owned website provider has decided they don't want to be associated with the trash that populated stormfront. The members of that group still have freedom of speech. But the 1st amendment does not guarantee access to someone else's property.

There is something I love about that argument. It cannot stand scrutiny.

If the First Amendment does not guarantee access to someone else's property, tell me how a gay couple has the right to force a private business to make a cake for a gay wedding.

Where, may I ask are the baker's rights?

When it's convenient, some people argue that whites have no rights. But, when the other side of the coin is presented, whites are somehow locked out on the SAME grounds the whites used when they tried to protect themselves. Funny how that works.

First of all, the case with the bakers had nothing to do with the 1st Amendment.

Second of all, the bakers lost because of anti-discrimination laws for businesses open to the public.

OK... first of all, Freedom of Religion IS a First Amendment issue. But no matter how the left spins it, they have the right to force their views onto others and be protected against the right from putting their views out there.

The bakers lost because the government sticks it's head into the private sector for the purposes of enforcing "public policy" - the shy terminology for the unofficial state religion- secular humanism.

 

[WinterBorn]

A privately owned website provider has decided they don't want to be associated with the trash that populated stormfront. The members of that group still have freedom of speech. But the 1st amendment does not guarantee access to someone else's property.

There is something I love about that argument. It cannot stand scrutiny.

If the First Amendment does not guarantee access to someone else's property, tell me how a gay couple has the right to force a private business to make a cake for a gay wedding.

Where, may I ask are the baker's rights?

When it's convenient, some people argue that whites have no rights. But, when the other side of the coin is presented, whites are somehow locked out on the SAME grounds the whites used when they tried to protect themselves. Funny how that works.

First of all, the case with the bakers had nothing to do with the 1st Amendment.

Second of all, the bakers lost because of anti-discrimination laws for businesses open to the public.

OK... first of all, Freedom of Religion IS a First Amendment issue. But no matter how the left spins it, they have the right to force their views onto others and be protected against the right from putting their views out there.

The bakers lost because the government sticks it's head into the private sector for the purposes of enforcing "public policy" - the shy terminology for the unofficial state religion- secular humanism.

The gov't passed laws concerning discrimination. The bakers violated those laws. It is really that simple. They are welcome to their beliefs. But if your religion says you do not cater to blacks, you either get out of business or you violate that law.

 

[WinterBorn]

So why do we allow websites that openly advocate for affirmative action, the govt mandated persecution of white men and the biggest hate crime in america.

Stormfront, internet’s longest-running white supremacist site, goes offline

aug 26 2017 Stormfront, one of the internet’s oldest and most popular white supremacist sites, has been booted off its web address of more than two decades amid a crackdown against hate sites.

The address Stormfront.org went dark on Friday, and publicly available information current lists its domain status as “under hold,” a category reserved for websites under legal dispute or slated for deletion, the USA Today network first reported.

The Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, a D.C.-based nonprofit group, said it was behind the effort and had successfully booted the website from its domain of 22 years by raising its concerns with Stormfront’s registrar, Network Solutions LLC, and its parent company, Web.com.

“Their website is a vehicle used to promote racially-motivated violence and hate,” Kristen Clarke, the committee’s executive director, said in a statement. “Following our efforts, Network Solutions has pulled the site. We are working across the country to combat the spread of hate crimes.”

And just to clarify, I don't hate whites. I don't hate based on skin color at all. I dislike idiots and people who threaten violence based on skin color or other trivial matters.

 

[Humorme]

Humorme So basically you do not agree with freedom of speech/belief/opinion on the internet. Sorry bud, I'm on the other end of the web from that ideology. I'm an American who's had the freedom to say and think as I damn well wish my entire life, I have no desire to be word and thought policed by idiots who get offended by fucking banana peels. I expect people to be responsible for their own feelings and opinions - which means if you get "terrified" by banana peels bummer, learn to deal.

Kind of like I have a legit phobia of needles and bees - I'm not out there saying folks can't talk about that shit, even though it does make me exceptionally uncomfortable, to the point of squealing like a little girl (at the age of fucking 43.) There is no way in hell I'd expect anyone else to understand much less "cater" to my personal and individual phobia; even if it was a rational thing to fear.

Whatever, why don't you freedom haters leave America? There are nations where they monitor everything said and nothing offensive is allowed, why not go there instead of trying to make America ditch freedom of speech/opinion/thought? ~sigh~

I'm not a "freedom hater" by any stretch of the imagination. I would fight for your Right to say whatever you want.

But, America doesn't have an organization that stands up for your Rights. What you have is a shadow government that out-maneuvered the white people of this country at every level. For the past twenty years, the powers that be have worked diligently to make this country a toothless tiger.

People have become accustomed to talking trash on the Internet and not having to back it up. That is the only problem I have with it. Most of these discussion boards and other social media have been teaching the people to depend upon others in make believe positions of authority to protect you. The Internet made people lazy.

There was a time when, if a man had something to say to you personally, if he wanted to call you out, he stood up to you, face to face. Here, people can insult you, threaten you, etc. and most social media will not stand up for you if you are not in the majority. Most social media forces you to take B.S. and if you respond, they ban you. From that perspective, there is an attempt to program people, Pavlovian style, so I would definitely be FOR more freedom on the Internet.

Where the major problem is was created by the right being irresponsible. While I am all for their Freedom and Liberty, they acted irresponsibly by using a lot of inflammatory and incendiary language. While they have every Right to do so, it made it hard for profiteers to defend them. So now, the ADL, SPLC, etc. applies a little pressure and the Internet profiteers run like scared jackrabbits. Google and other such companies have NO interest in your Liberty. They don't care about anything outside the almighty dollar. And if you make it hard for them to defend you, they drop you.

I'd like to see those people who are constitutionalists rise up and reclaim America. The Constitution is dead, but the spirit of Liberty transcends that document. They can't do it when they are beholden to profiteers to get their message out. So, let the profiteers throw away billions in profits. Go old school on the liberals. Read books, subscribe to newsletters that come through the U.S. mail. Talk to people on the phone. Buy CDs and DVDs... VHS if need be. Hold get togethers around the kitchen table.

The old way will help you regain focus, plan better strategies and once the profiteers begin to see what they're losing for sucking up to the extreme left, they will come courting you for your business once again.

 

[Humorme]

A privately owned website provider has decided they don't want to be associated with the trash that populated stormfront. The members of that group still have freedom of speech. But the 1st amendment does not guarantee access to someone else's property.

There is something I love about that argument. It cannot stand scrutiny.

If the First Amendment does not guarantee access to someone else's property, tell me how a gay couple has the right to force a private business to make a cake for a gay wedding.

Where, may I ask are the baker's rights?

When it's convenient, some people argue that whites have no rights. But, when the other side of the coin is presented, whites are somehow locked out on the SAME grounds the whites used when they tried to protect themselves. Funny how that works.

First of all, the case with the bakers had nothing to do with the 1st Amendment.

Second of all, the bakers lost because of anti-discrimination laws for businesses open to the public.

OK... first of all, Freedom of Religion IS a First Amendment issue. But no matter how the left spins it, they have the right to force their views onto others and be protected against the right from putting their views out there.

The bakers lost because the government sticks it's head into the private sector for the purposes of enforcing "public policy" - the shy terminology for the unofficial state religion- secular humanism.

The gov't passed laws concerning discrimination. The bakers violated those laws. It is really that simple. They are welcome to their beliefs. But if your religion says you do not cater to blacks, you either get out of business or you violate that law.

Yeah, it is really simple. The government passes unconstitutional laws to enforce public policy. I'm not a damn idiot. You aren't telling me anything that is earth shattering news.

The bottom line is: The baker is not entitled to his views and whites are not entitled to constitutional protections.

If the Bill of Rights does not extend to help the baker, it should not be a bar against them either. You have that little thing called the 14th Amendment and the equal protection of the laws.

But, again, it's amazingly simple: the left is in charge so the laws that protect one side of the political coin are not available to the other side... because you can commit "legal" discrimination. It's that simple, but it is a problem

 

[WinterBorn]

A privately owned website provider has decided they don't want to be associated with the trash that populated stormfront. The members of that group still have freedom of speech. But the 1st amendment does not guarantee access to someone else's property.

There is something I love about that argument. It cannot stand scrutiny.

If the First Amendment does not guarantee access to someone else's property, tell me how a gay couple has the right to force a private business to make a cake for a gay wedding.

Where, may I ask are the baker's rights?

When it's convenient, some people argue that whites have no rights. But, when the other side of the coin is presented, whites are somehow locked out on the SAME grounds the whites used when they tried to protect themselves. Funny how that works.

First of all, the case with the bakers had nothing to do with the 1st Amendment.

Second of all, the bakers lost because of anti-discrimination laws for businesses open to the public.

OK... first of all, Freedom of Religion IS a First Amendment issue. But no matter how the left spins it, they have the right to force their views onto others and be protected against the right from putting their views out there.

The bakers lost because the government sticks it's head into the private sector for the purposes of enforcing "public policy" - the shy terminology for the unofficial state religion- secular humanism.

The gov't passed laws concerning discrimination. The bakers violated those laws. It is really that simple. They are welcome to their beliefs. But if your religion says you do not cater to blacks, you either get out of business or you violate that law.

Yeah, it is really simple. The government passes unconstitutional laws to enforce public policy. I'm not a damn idiot. You aren't telling me anything that is earth shattering news.

The bottom line is: The baker is not entitled to his views and whites are not entitled to constitutional protections.

If the Bill of Rights does not extend to help the baker, it should not be a bar against them either. You have that little thing called the 14th Amendment and the equal protection of the laws.

But, again, it's amazingly simple: the left is in charge so the laws that protect one side of the political coin are not available to the other side... because you can commit "legal" discrimination. It's that simple, but it is a problem

No, it is not "legal discrimination". It is a case of cafeteria christians picking which bible verses they want to keep. They violated anti-discrimination laws. They didn't protest when the laws were passed.

 

[Faun]

A privately owned website provider has decided they don't want to be associated with the trash that populated stormfront. The members of that group still have freedom of speech. But the 1st amendment does not guarantee access to someone else's property.

There is something I love about that argument. It cannot stand scrutiny.

If the First Amendment does not guarantee access to someone else's property, tell me how a gay couple has the right to force a private business to make a cake for a gay wedding.

Where, may I ask are the baker's rights?

When it's convenient, some people argue that whites have no rights. But, when the other side of the coin is presented, whites are somehow locked out on the SAME grounds the whites used when they tried to protect themselves. Funny how that works.

First of all, the case with the bakers had nothing to do with the 1st Amendment.

Second of all, the bakers lost because of anti-discrimination laws for businesses open to the public.

OK... first of all, Freedom of Religion IS a First Amendment issue. But no matter how the left spins it, they have the right to force their views onto others and be protected against the right from putting their views out there.

The bakers lost because the government sticks it's head into the private sector for the purposes of enforcing "public policy" - the shy terminology for the unofficial state religion- secular humanism.

The gov't passed laws concerning discrimination. The bakers violated those laws. It is really that simple. They are welcome to their beliefs. But if your religion says you do not cater to blacks, you either get out of business or you violate that law.

Yeah, it is really simple. The government passes unconstitutional laws to enforce public policy. I'm not a damn idiot. You aren't telling me anything that is earth shattering news.

The bottom line is: The baker is not entitled to his views and whites are not entitled to constitutional protections.

If the Bill of Rights does not extend to help the baker, it should not be a bar against them either. You have that little thing called the 14th Amendment and the equal protection of the laws.

But, again, it's amazingly simple: the left is in charge so the laws that protect one side of the political coin are not available to the other side... because you can commit "legal" discrimination. It's that simple, but it is a problem

Oh, for christ's sake.

Public accommodation laws have not been ruled unconstitutional. And you can't blame the left because you don't like those laws. The right controls the Executive branch, both chambers in the Congress, some 30 governorships. And those laws remain on the books and constitutional.

 

[Humorme]

There is something I love about that argument. It cannot stand scrutiny.

If the First Amendment does not guarantee access to someone else's property, tell me how a gay couple has the right to force a private business to make a cake for a gay wedding.

Where, may I ask are the baker's rights?

When it's convenient, some people argue that whites have no rights. But, when the other side of the coin is presented, whites are somehow locked out on the SAME grounds the whites used when they tried to protect themselves. Funny how that works.

First of all, the case with the bakers had nothing to do with the 1st Amendment.

Second of all, the bakers lost because of anti-discrimination laws for businesses open to the public.

OK... first of all, Freedom of Religion IS a First Amendment issue. But no matter how the left spins it, they have the right to force their views onto others and be protected against the right from putting their views out there.

The bakers lost because the government sticks it's head into the private sector for the purposes of enforcing "public policy" - the shy terminology for the unofficial state religion- secular humanism.

The gov't passed laws concerning discrimination. The bakers violated those laws. It is really that simple. They are welcome to their beliefs. But if your religion says you do not cater to blacks, you either get out of business or you violate that law.

Yeah, it is really simple. The government passes unconstitutional laws to enforce public policy. I'm not a damn idiot. You aren't telling me anything that is earth shattering news.

The bottom line is: The baker is not entitled to his views and whites are not entitled to constitutional protections.

If the Bill of Rights does not extend to help the baker, it should not be a bar against them either. You have that little thing called the 14th Amendment and the equal protection of the laws.

But, again, it's amazingly simple: the left is in charge so the laws that protect one side of the political coin are not available to the other side... because you can commit "legal" discrimination. It's that simple, but it is a problem

No, it is not "legal discrimination". It is a case of cafeteria christians picking which bible verses they want to keep. They violated anti-discrimination laws. They didn't protest when the laws were passed.

OMG. It is what is known as legal discrimination. The left gets to cherry pick what the Constitution says.

 

[WinterBorn]

First of all, the case with the bakers had nothing to do with the 1st Amendment.

Second of all, the bakers lost because of anti-discrimination laws for businesses open to the public.

OK... first of all, Freedom of Religion IS a First Amendment issue. But no matter how the left spins it, they have the right to force their views onto others and be protected against the right from putting their views out there.

The bakers lost because the government sticks it's head into the private sector for the purposes of enforcing "public policy" - the shy terminology for the unofficial state religion- secular humanism.

The gov't passed laws concerning discrimination. The bakers violated those laws. It is really that simple. They are welcome to their beliefs. But if your religion says you do not cater to blacks, you either get out of business or you violate that law.

Yeah, it is really simple. The government passes unconstitutional laws to enforce public policy. I'm not a damn idiot. You aren't telling me anything that is earth shattering news.

The bottom line is: The baker is not entitled to his views and whites are not entitled to constitutional protections.

If the Bill of Rights does not extend to help the baker, it should not be a bar against them either. You have that little thing called the 14th Amendment and the equal protection of the laws.

But, again, it's amazingly simple: the left is in charge so the laws that protect one side of the political coin are not available to the other side... because you can commit "legal" discrimination. It's that simple, but it is a problem

No, it is not "legal discrimination". It is a case of cafeteria christians picking which bible verses they want to keep. They violated anti-discrimination laws. They didn't protest when the laws were passed.

OMG. It is what is known as legal discrimination. The left gets to cherry pick what the Constitution says.

BOTH sides cherry pick what they want the US Constitution says.

 

[Humorme]

There is something I love about that argument. It cannot stand scrutiny.

If the First Amendment does not guarantee access to someone else's property, tell me how a gay couple has the right to force a private business to make a cake for a gay wedding.

Where, may I ask are the baker's rights?

When it's convenient, some people argue that whites have no rights. But, when the other side of the coin is presented, whites are somehow locked out on the SAME grounds the whites used when they tried to protect themselves. Funny how that works.

First of all, the case with the bakers had nothing to do with the 1st Amendment.

Second of all, the bakers lost because of anti-discrimination laws for businesses open to the public.

OK... first of all, Freedom of Religion IS a First Amendment issue. But no matter how the left spins it, they have the right to force their views onto others and be protected against the right from putting their views out there.

The bakers lost because the government sticks it's head into the private sector for the purposes of enforcing "public policy" - the shy terminology for the unofficial state religion- secular humanism.

The gov't passed laws concerning discrimination. The bakers violated those laws. It is really that simple. They are welcome to their beliefs. But if your religion says you do not cater to blacks, you either get out of business or you violate that law.

Yeah, it is really simple. The government passes unconstitutional laws to enforce public policy. I'm not a damn idiot. You aren't telling me anything that is earth shattering news.

The bottom line is: The baker is not entitled to his views and whites are not entitled to constitutional protections.

If the Bill of Rights does not extend to help the baker, it should not be a bar against them either. You have that little thing called the 14th Amendment and the equal protection of the laws.

But, again, it's amazingly simple: the left is in charge so the laws that protect one side of the political coin are not available to the other side... because you can commit "legal" discrimination. It's that simple, but it is a problem

Oh, for christ's sake.

Public accommodation laws have not been ruled unconstitutional. And you can't blame the left because you don't like those laws. The right controls the Executive branch, both chambers in the Congress, some 30 governorships. And those laws remain on the books and constitutional.

That is the dumbass post of the century. WHEN the laws were passed that I complain about, America was under the control of Democrats.

The right, even today, doesn't control squat. RINOs in Congress aren't on the right by a long shot. Add to that I am not right, but constitutionalist and you should understand... I have damn few allies on Capitol Hill.

 

[Humorme]

OK... first of all, Freedom of Religion IS a First Amendment issue. But no matter how the left spins it, they have the right to force their views onto others and be protected against the right from putting their views out there.

The bakers lost because the government sticks it's head into the private sector for the purposes of enforcing "public policy" - the shy terminology for the unofficial state religion- secular humanism.

The gov't passed laws concerning discrimination. The bakers violated those laws. It is really that simple. They are welcome to their beliefs. But if your religion says you do not cater to blacks, you either get out of business or you violate that law.

Yeah, it is really simple. The government passes unconstitutional laws to enforce public policy. I'm not a damn idiot. You aren't telling me anything that is earth shattering news.

The bottom line is: The baker is not entitled to his views and whites are not entitled to constitutional protections.

If the Bill of Rights does not extend to help the baker, it should not be a bar against them either. You have that little thing called the 14th Amendment and the equal protection of the laws.

But, again, it's amazingly simple: the left is in charge so the laws that protect one side of the political coin are not available to the other side... because you can commit "legal" discrimination. It's that simple, but it is a problem

No, it is not "legal discrimination". It is a case of cafeteria christians picking which bible verses they want to keep. They violated anti-discrimination laws. They didn't protest when the laws were passed.

OMG. It is what is known as legal discrimination. The left gets to cherry pick what the Constitution says.

BOTH sides cherry pick what they want the US Constitution says.

That's more accurate than what you previously said. In any event, the laws are skewed against the white people being able to believe in what they want to believe in. And there is always some rip roaring "legal" pretext used to avoid reality.

 

[Faun]

First of all, the case with the bakers had nothing to do with the 1st Amendment.

Second of all, the bakers lost because of anti-discrimination laws for businesses open to the public.

OK... first of all, Freedom of Religion IS a First Amendment issue. But no matter how the left spins it, they have the right to force their views onto others and be protected against the right from putting their views out there.

The bakers lost because the government sticks it's head into the private sector for the purposes of enforcing "public policy" - the shy terminology for the unofficial state religion- secular humanism.

The gov't passed laws concerning discrimination. The bakers violated those laws. It is really that simple. They are welcome to their beliefs. But if your religion says you do not cater to blacks, you either get out of business or you violate that law.

Yeah, it is really simple. The government passes unconstitutional laws to enforce public policy. I'm not a damn idiot. You aren't telling me anything that is earth shattering news.

The bottom line is: The baker is not entitled to his views and whites are not entitled to constitutional protections.

If the Bill of Rights does not extend to help the baker, it should not be a bar against them either. You have that little thing called the 14th Amendment and the equal protection of the laws.

But, again, it's amazingly simple: the left is in charge so the laws that protect one side of the political coin are not available to the other side... because you can commit "legal" discrimination. It's that simple, but it is a problem

Oh, for christ's sake.

Public accommodation laws have not been ruled unconstitutional. And you can't blame the left because you don't like those laws. The right controls the Executive branch, both chambers in the Congress, some 30 governorships. And those laws remain on the books and constitutional.

That is the dumbass post of the century. WHEN the laws were passed that I complain about, America was under the control of Democrats.

The right, even today, doesn't control squat. RINOs in Congress aren't on the right by a long shot. Add to that I am not right, but constitutionalist and you should understand... I have damn few allies on Capitol Hill.

LOLOL

Imbeciles like you could hold all 535 seats in Congress, all 9 USSC seats, and all 50 governorships-- and you'd still cry like a bitch that you don't control shit.

Here, this one's for you...

 

[WinterBorn]

The gov't passed laws concerning discrimination. The bakers violated those laws. It is really that simple. They are welcome to their beliefs. But if your religion says you do not cater to blacks, you either get out of business or you violate that law.

Yeah, it is really simple. The government passes unconstitutional laws to enforce public policy. I'm not a damn idiot. You aren't telling me anything that is earth shattering news.

The bottom line is: The baker is not entitled to his views and whites are not entitled to constitutional protections.

If the Bill of Rights does not extend to help the baker, it should not be a bar against them either. You have that little thing called the 14th Amendment and the equal protection of the laws.

But, again, it's amazingly simple: the left is in charge so the laws that protect one side of the political coin are not available to the other side... because you can commit "legal" discrimination. It's that simple, but it is a problem

No, it is not "legal discrimination". It is a case of cafeteria christians picking which bible verses they want to keep. They violated anti-discrimination laws. They didn't protest when the laws were passed.

OMG. It is what is known as legal discrimination. The left gets to cherry pick what the Constitution says.

BOTH sides cherry pick what they want the US Constitution says.

That's more accurate than what you previously said. In any event, the laws are skewed against the white people being able to believe in what they want to believe in. And there is always some rip roaring "legal" pretext used to avoid reality.

The website that StormFront was on is owned by a private company. They decided to discontinue the site. No 1st Amendment violation there.

 

[Carl in Michigan]

The right, even today, doesn't control squat. RINOs in Congress aren't on the right by a long shot.

Thank you. You beat me to it.

If they think "Republican" is synonymous with "conservative," they are of the FAR Left.

The MAJORITY of Republicans are Progressives, and not Constitutionalist.