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

[Humorme]

And you think this ... because ... ?

it's called reality you smug fuck.

LOL

As if your delusions are real.

You should give it up. The posters here are kicking your ass back into the stone age.

What are you really getting out of this? The only rational explanation is that you are on the right and need to make talking points, so you push posters here as far as you can with easily dismissed drivel. We end up providing you with talking points you can use elsewhere.

It's the most bizarre thing I've ever seen.

I love that you went from arguing an actual point to accusations of trolling or questioning what they get out of posting (especially since you are doing the same thing).

I'm merely responding to a continuation of troll posts. Nothing more and certainly nothing less.

The points have been made - asked and answered. Ignoring what I've posted doesn't bolster any claims by those on your side. If your argument fails, it fails. And it failed. Those pushing your side's talking points have NO case. There is nothing more to be said.

 

[Humorme]

Then what in the Hell do you call what the web host did to Stormfront? They clearly discriminated against them.

They didn't discriminate against Stormfront. Stormfront violated Network Solutions' term of service.

Your atrocious reading skills negate any and all arguments you've made. It's already been stipulated to everything you've said.

The bottom line is, you've not responded to the points I made in my rebuttal. You can pretend, until Hell freezes over that no rebuttal was made... but it has been made. You can't respond to it because you got the shit kicked out of your weak and prejudicial argument.

The only weak ass argument on this thread is to admit you don't know if it's legal to discriminate against anyone via a contract. NOTHING has been addressed regarding violating a person's Rights via an adhesion contract. Go ahead an ignore the point. You don't understand the law and are too lazy to research it.

It's all good. You threw in the towel and you're the only one (other than one other troll) too dumb to realize it.

My reading skills are just fine. Network Solutions did not discriminate. Your tenacious whining doesn't change that. Pointing out their terms of service amounts to an adhesion contract is meaningless since such contracts are commonplace. You then extend your position of an adhesion contract to cross the crazy bridge to it being an "unconscionable contract" without offering a stitch of evidence other than to point out "adhesion contracts can become an unconscionable contract."

Hysterically, you then spike the ball as though you just scored when there was actually no gain on the play.

To score, you have to first prove the contract was unconscionable.

Denying people their Right to believe something as a prerequisite to doing business with them is unconscionable

Denying people some right they have under law as a prerequisite to doing business with them is unconscionable

Forcing someone to give up any Right under the Constitution as a prerequisite to doing business with them is unconscionable.

No matter how you spin your argument, you lose.

No one denied them the right to believe.

No one was denied any rights.

No one was forced to give up any rights.

If you choose to defend discrimination, that is your choice. But the laws against discrimination do not violate the US Constitution.

Totally nucking futs! If you believe that doing a certain action is wrong, then it's wrong. Forcing people to do that which they find morally reprehensible is wrong. What in the Hell is so hard about understanding that?

 

[WinterBorn]

And you think this ... because ... ?

it's called reality you smug fuck.

LOL

As if your delusions are real.

You should give it up. The posters here are kicking your ass back into the stone age.

What are you really getting out of this? The only rational explanation is that you are on the right and need to make talking points, so you push posters here as far as you can with easily dismissed drivel. We end up providing you with talking points you can use elsewhere.

It's the most bizarre thing I've ever seen.

I love that you went from arguing an actual point to accusations of trolling or questioning what they get out of posting (especially since you are doing the same thing).

I'm merely responding to a continuation of troll posts. Nothing more and certainly nothing less.

The points have been made - asked and answered. Ignoring what I've posted doesn't bolster any claims by those on your side. If your argument fails, it fails. And it failed. Those pushing your side's talking points have NO case. There is nothing more to be said.

Pointing out that the situations and laws are different when talking StormCunt and the bakery is not trolling. It is factual.

 

[WinterBorn]

They didn't discriminate against Stormfront. Stormfront violated Network Solutions' term of service.

Your atrocious reading skills negate any and all arguments you've made. It's already been stipulated to everything you've said.

The bottom line is, you've not responded to the points I made in my rebuttal. You can pretend, until Hell freezes over that no rebuttal was made... but it has been made. You can't respond to it because you got the shit kicked out of your weak and prejudicial argument.

The only weak ass argument on this thread is to admit you don't know if it's legal to discriminate against anyone via a contract. NOTHING has been addressed regarding violating a person's Rights via an adhesion contract. Go ahead an ignore the point. You don't understand the law and are too lazy to research it.

It's all good. You threw in the towel and you're the only one (other than one other troll) too dumb to realize it.

My reading skills are just fine. Network Solutions did not discriminate. Your tenacious whining doesn't change that. Pointing out their terms of service amounts to an adhesion contract is meaningless since such contracts are commonplace. You then extend your position of an adhesion contract to cross the crazy bridge to it being an "unconscionable contract" without offering a stitch of evidence other than to point out "adhesion contracts can become an unconscionable contract."

Hysterically, you then spike the ball as though you just scored when there was actually no gain on the play.

To score, you have to first prove the contract was unconscionable.

Denying people their Right to believe something as a prerequisite to doing business with them is unconscionable

Denying people some right they have under law as a prerequisite to doing business with them is unconscionable

Forcing someone to give up any Right under the Constitution as a prerequisite to doing business with them is unconscionable.

No matter how you spin your argument, you lose.

No one denied them the right to believe.

No one was denied any rights.

No one was forced to give up any rights.

If you choose to defend discrimination, that is your choice. But the laws against discrimination do not violate the US Constitution.

Totally nucking futs! If you believe that doing a certain action is wrong, then it's wrong. Forcing people to do that which they find morally reprehensible is wrong. What in the Hell is so hard about understanding that?

So the bakers find baking a cake "morally reprehensible". Because no one even invited them to the actual wedding. The two lesbians marrying did not make them gay.

 

[Humorme]

it's called reality you smug fuck.

LOL

As if your delusions are real.

You should give it up. The posters here are kicking your ass back into the stone age.

What are you really getting out of this? The only rational explanation is that you are on the right and need to make talking points, so you push posters here as far as you can with easily dismissed drivel. We end up providing you with talking points you can use elsewhere.

It's the most bizarre thing I've ever seen.

I love that you went from arguing an actual point to accusations of trolling or questioning what they get out of posting (especially since you are doing the same thing).

I'm merely responding to a continuation of troll posts. Nothing more and certainly nothing less.

The points have been made - asked and answered. Ignoring what I've posted doesn't bolster any claims by those on your side. If your argument fails, it fails. And it failed. Those pushing your side's talking points have NO case. There is nothing more to be said.

Pointing out that the situations and laws are different when talking StormCunt and the bakery is not trolling. It is factual.

WTF??? All of this has been covered umpteen times. You've cited your mickey mouse laws. I moved beyond that. I don't have to obey unconstitutional acts. And I won't. Don't like it? Sin Loi Victor Charlie.

 

[Wry Catcher]

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.”

It's a disaster, those (^*%#@#&&^$#';s have invaded the USMB with their hate and filth and their evil ideology.

 

[Humorme]

Your atrocious reading skills negate any and all arguments you've made. It's already been stipulated to everything you've said.

The bottom line is, you've not responded to the points I made in my rebuttal. You can pretend, until Hell freezes over that no rebuttal was made... but it has been made. You can't respond to it because you got the shit kicked out of your weak and prejudicial argument.

The only weak ass argument on this thread is to admit you don't know if it's legal to discriminate against anyone via a contract. NOTHING has been addressed regarding violating a person's Rights via an adhesion contract. Go ahead an ignore the point. You don't understand the law and are too lazy to research it.

It's all good. You threw in the towel and you're the only one (other than one other troll) too dumb to realize it.

My reading skills are just fine. Network Solutions did not discriminate. Your tenacious whining doesn't change that. Pointing out their terms of service amounts to an adhesion contract is meaningless since such contracts are commonplace. You then extend your position of an adhesion contract to cross the crazy bridge to it being an "unconscionable contract" without offering a stitch of evidence other than to point out "adhesion contracts can become an unconscionable contract."

Hysterically, you then spike the ball as though you just scored when there was actually no gain on the play.

To score, you have to first prove the contract was unconscionable.

Denying people their Right to believe something as a prerequisite to doing business with them is unconscionable

Denying people some right they have under law as a prerequisite to doing business with them is unconscionable

Forcing someone to give up any Right under the Constitution as a prerequisite to doing business with them is unconscionable.

No matter how you spin your argument, you lose.

No one denied them the right to believe.

No one was denied any rights.

No one was forced to give up any rights.

If you choose to defend discrimination, that is your choice. But the laws against discrimination do not violate the US Constitution.

Totally nucking futs! If you believe that doing a certain action is wrong, then it's wrong. Forcing people to do that which they find morally reprehensible is wrong. What in the Hell is so hard about understanding that?

So the bakers find baking a cake "morally reprehensible". Because no one even invited them to the actual wedding. The two lesbians marrying did not make them gay.

You don't have the fucking right to judge what others find morally reprehensible. You don't have any God given Right to impose your standards on other people. IF laws are constructed to force you to do that which you find objectionable, you should be able to abstain.

The gay people can go to virtually any place that bakes cakes and buy what they want. It's not that big of a deal. If it were me, I'd burn that damn bakery to the ground before I'd violate the dictates of my conscience. And, if that were done, maybe I could go on welfare, my employees on unemployment and the government could raise YOUR taxes to make up the difference.

Now, do you understand?

 

[Humorme]

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.”

It's a disaster, those (^*%#@#&&^$#';s have invaded the USMB with their hate and filth and their evil ideology.

Yeah scumbag white people... we should kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out. (Sarcasm intended) Idiocy, plain idiocy.

 

[WinterBorn]

LOL

As if your delusions are real.

You should give it up. The posters here are kicking your ass back into the stone age.

What are you really getting out of this? The only rational explanation is that you are on the right and need to make talking points, so you push posters here as far as you can with easily dismissed drivel. We end up providing you with talking points you can use elsewhere.

It's the most bizarre thing I've ever seen.

I love that you went from arguing an actual point to accusations of trolling or questioning what they get out of posting (especially since you are doing the same thing).

I'm merely responding to a continuation of troll posts. Nothing more and certainly nothing less.

The points have been made - asked and answered. Ignoring what I've posted doesn't bolster any claims by those on your side. If your argument fails, it fails. And it failed. Those pushing your side's talking points have NO case. There is nothing more to be said.

Pointing out that the situations and laws are different when talking StormCunt and the bakery is not trolling. It is factual.

WTF??? All of this has been covered umpteen times. You've cited your mickey mouse laws. I moved beyond that. I don't have to obey unconstitutional acts. And I won't. Don't like it? Sin Loi Victor Charlie.

YOu are welcome to claim that they are unconstitutional. There has been no ruling to that effect.

 

[WinterBorn]

My reading skills are just fine. Network Solutions did not discriminate. Your tenacious whining doesn't change that. Pointing out their terms of service amounts to an adhesion contract is meaningless since such contracts are commonplace. You then extend your position of an adhesion contract to cross the crazy bridge to it being an "unconscionable contract" without offering a stitch of evidence other than to point out "adhesion contracts can become an unconscionable contract."

Hysterically, you then spike the ball as though you just scored when there was actually no gain on the play.

To score, you have to first prove the contract was unconscionable.

Denying people their Right to believe something as a prerequisite to doing business with them is unconscionable

Denying people some right they have under law as a prerequisite to doing business with them is unconscionable

Forcing someone to give up any Right under the Constitution as a prerequisite to doing business with them is unconscionable.

No matter how you spin your argument, you lose.

No one denied them the right to believe.

No one was denied any rights.

No one was forced to give up any rights.

If you choose to defend discrimination, that is your choice. But the laws against discrimination do not violate the US Constitution.

Totally nucking futs! If you believe that doing a certain action is wrong, then it's wrong. Forcing people to do that which they find morally reprehensible is wrong. What in the Hell is so hard about understanding that?

So the bakers find baking a cake "morally reprehensible". Because no one even invited them to the actual wedding. The two lesbians marrying did not make them gay.

You don't have the fucking right to judge what others find morally reprehensible. You don't have any God given Right to impose your standards on other people. IF laws are constructed to force you to do that which you find objectionable, you should be able to abstain.

The gay people can go to virtually any place that bakes cakes and buy what they want. It's not that big of a deal. If it were me, I'd burn that damn bakery to the ground before I'd violate the dictates of my conscience. And, if that were done, maybe I could go on welfare, my employees on unemployment and the government could raise YOUR taxes to make up the difference.

Now, do you understand?

Oh I got it long ago. You hate gay people. No biggie.

Funny, you demand that no one be able to judge what people find morally reprehensible. And you demand that the world accept your view that the bakers were right. I find their actions morally reprehensible.

 

[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.”

It's a disaster, those (^*%#@#&&^$#';s have invaded the USMB with their hate and filth and their evil ideology.

Yeah scumbag white people... we should kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out. (Sarcasm intended) Idiocy, plain idiocy.

Are they bashing white people? Or are they speaking out against the violent evil that is the white nationalist movement? Those are two very different things.

 

[WinterBorn]

You will have to argue with yourself for a while. I'm headed to TN to see my grown children and my grandson. Gonna be a great day!!

 

[impuretrash]

Are they bashing white people? Or are they speaking out against the violent evil that is the white nationalist movement? Those are two very different things.

Muh white supreeeeeemacy. It's called self preservation, dickhead. Check out what happens to these mainstream news headlines when you replace the word white with jewish

 

[Humorme]

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.”

It's a disaster, those (^*%#@#&&^$#';s have invaded the USMB with their hate and filth and their evil ideology.

Yeah scumbag white people... we should kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out. (Sarcasm intended) Idiocy, plain idiocy.

Are they bashing white people? Or are they speaking out against the violent evil that is the white nationalist movement? Those are two very different things.

I think a lot of white activists exist because they were the victims of some social injustice being done in the name of multiculturalism. Since society does not allow responsible white activists to exist, you have people like Stormfront. Then, without them, the whites have virtually no representation.

Someone should step forward and take the media heat and push forward for the preservation, protection and advancement of white people, but not at the expense of the rights of others.

 

[Humorme]

Denying people their Right to believe something as a prerequisite to doing business with them is unconscionable

Denying people some right they have under law as a prerequisite to doing business with them is unconscionable

Forcing someone to give up any Right under the Constitution as a prerequisite to doing business with them is unconscionable.

No matter how you spin your argument, you lose.

No one denied them the right to believe.

No one was denied any rights.

No one was forced to give up any rights.

If you choose to defend discrimination, that is your choice. But the laws against discrimination do not violate the US Constitution.

Totally nucking futs! If you believe that doing a certain action is wrong, then it's wrong. Forcing people to do that which they find morally reprehensible is wrong. What in the Hell is so hard about understanding that?

So the bakers find baking a cake "morally reprehensible". Because no one even invited them to the actual wedding. The two lesbians marrying did not make them gay.

You don't have the fucking right to judge what others find morally reprehensible. You don't have any God given Right to impose your standards on other people. IF laws are constructed to force you to do that which you find objectionable, you should be able to abstain.

The gay people can go to virtually any place that bakes cakes and buy what they want. It's not that big of a deal. If it were me, I'd burn that damn bakery to the ground before I'd violate the dictates of my conscience. And, if that were done, maybe I could go on welfare, my employees on unemployment and the government could raise YOUR taxes to make up the difference.

Now, do you understand?

Oh I got it long ago. You hate gay people. No biggie.

Funny, you demand that no one be able to judge what people find morally reprehensible. And you demand that the world accept your view that the bakers were right. I find their actions morally reprehensible.

Absolute lunacy. I don't allow people to smoke in my home, but my mother was a lifelong smoker - just never in my home. I sure as Hell didn't "hate" her. So, you fail yet again. I don't have any personal issue with gays.

 

[Moonglow]

If you guys are so into self preservation embalming works..

 

[Humorme]

You should give it up. The posters here are kicking your ass back into the stone age.

What are you really getting out of this? The only rational explanation is that you are on the right and need to make talking points, so you push posters here as far as you can with easily dismissed drivel. We end up providing you with talking points you can use elsewhere.

It's the most bizarre thing I've ever seen.

I love that you went from arguing an actual point to accusations of trolling or questioning what they get out of posting (especially since you are doing the same thing).

I'm merely responding to a continuation of troll posts. Nothing more and certainly nothing less.

The points have been made - asked and answered. Ignoring what I've posted doesn't bolster any claims by those on your side. If your argument fails, it fails. And it failed. Those pushing your side's talking points have NO case. There is nothing more to be said.

Pointing out that the situations and laws are different when talking StormCunt and the bakery is not trolling. It is factual.

WTF??? All of this has been covered umpteen times. You've cited your mickey mouse laws. I moved beyond that. I don't have to obey unconstitutional acts. And I won't. Don't like it? Sin Loi Victor Charlie.

YOu are welcome to claim that they are unconstitutional. There has been no ruling to that effect.

I don't need a court to tell me right from wrong. If they acknowledge my Rights, that's fine. If it takes resistance, so be it. But, if I were the baker, I'd be asking the government and the gay couple how far they wanted to take this.

Do the gays want to jack up everybody's taxes to keep someone else from obeying the dictates of their conscience? Do they want to put others out of work just because they don't want to go a mile down the road to another baker?

 

[Asclepias]

We can create an internet 2.0 using a different DNS system. Call it THE free speech zone. It'd be low population for a while, but you know how lefties work, they must always have a cause so eventually there will be nothing allowed to be spoken about on internet 1.0 and the honest folk would start seeking refuge from the fascists [upgrading to 2.0].

How would you do that since you dont own any pathways? You would need to connect via some medium.

 

[Camp]

Why are the nut jobs at those white supremacy or nationalist groups so paranoid and insecure? They all seem to be obsessed with fear about when their daughters, sisters, moms and girl friends will stick a black dick into one or both of their orifices.

 

[Asclepias]

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.

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.

Tell me WITF cake has anything to do with the 1st amd. You just conflated and convoluted a simple point into nonsense.

The First Amendment protects against there being a state religion. Forcing someone in the private sector to violate their religious conscience violates the so - called "separation of church and state" the left babbles on about.

The business isnt owned by the church you retard. When you open a business its in the public domain.