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

[ShootSpeeders]

So you support letting judges repeal laws even though the constitution says "all legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a congress of the united states.".

Thats the job of the Judicial branch you ignorant monkey. It was provided as a check.

Really? Where does the constitution say that.? It appears to everyone else that the constitution explicitly says judges CANNOT repeal laws.!!

 

[Faun]

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

No one is denying them their right to believe what they want. They don't have a right to inflict risk upon a company in violation of their terms of service.

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

That's nothing but your opinion. Proves nothing. Even worse, you're trying to deny Network Solutions their right to protect their own company from the liabilities they face from a customer using their service to promote violence.

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.

Keep telling yourself that, Spunky. Meanwhile, you have failed miserably to prove that Network Solutions' terms of service amounts to an unconscionable contract and Stormfront remains down.

YOU are the one who has spent this entire thread with the philosophical argument that private businesses cannot discriminate. OMG. Here we go again.

And I stand by that, even if you are too stupid to comprehend that.

Network Solutions did not discriminate.

You're being an idiot. What, exactly, do you think the word discriminate means?

Definition of discriminate
discriminated


discriminating

1. 
   
   
   • transitive verb
   • 1a : to mark or perceive the distinguishing or peculiar features ofDepth perception may be defined as the ability to appreciate or discriminate the third dimension … — H. G. Armstrongb : distinguish, differentiate discriminate hundreds of colors
   • 2: to distinguish by discerning or exposing differences : to recognize or identify as separate and distinct discriminate right from wrong; especially : to distinguish from another like object discriminate the individual voices in the choir

Network Solutions did not discriminate against Stormfront. They justifiably terminated services to a customer who violated their terms of service. Had Stormfront not violated their terms of service and Network Solutions terminated their service, then you would have a point. Since that is not the case, the only point is your pointy head.

 

[Asclepias]

So you support letting judges repeal laws even though the constitution says "all legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a congress of the united states.".

Thats the job of the Judicial branch you ignorant monkey. It was provided as a check.

Really? Where does the constitution say that.? It appears to everyone else that the constitution explicitly says judges CANNOT repeal laws.!!

Really you ignorant monkey. Go read Article 3 section 2 of the constitution. Basically Congress gets to make laws but the Judicial branch decides if they are legal.

"The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority.........."

 

[Faun]

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.

That you think I'm a) rightwing; b) getting my ass kicked; or c) should give up, reveals just how deluded you are.

That statement is an indictment exposing your ignorance. I'm not deluded into believing anything. If you're prodding me for an opinion about, I'd say you're a glutton for punishment. You continue to prattle on with the same point over and over and it has been responded to.

It seems to make you mad as Hell that the rest of the world don't walk, lockstep with your beliefs. Reality check: You're not God and you don't understand the difference between power and authority.

And yet, you're the one whining like a little bitch because Stormfront was taken down and the baker lost in court to a homosexual.

What do I have to be mad as hell at? Stormfront is gone (win for Liberals) and bakers who make wedding cakes can't hide behind their religion to discriminate against those they don't like (another win for Liberals).

You are the one who don't like it because you've been proven wrong over and over and over again.

LOLOL

Says you.

Reality says the baker has still lost at every turn in our Judicial system and Stormfront.com is still dead.

 

[Faun]

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.

Repeating your baseless opinion that Network Solutions' terms of service is an unconscionable contract is what fails. Your opinion is worthless and you've yet to offer anything whatsoever substantiate to demonstrate your point; which lies prostrate on the floor.

Try citing some case law instead of yourself.

You repeating the same shit over and over won't make it acceptable if a free society within our de jure / lawful constitutional Republic.

I'll keep repeating it until someone proves I'm wrong.

You may as well keep your word. I've proven your position to be wrong.

<smh>

Saying an adhesion contract CAN be an unconscionable contract, without proving it IS an unconscionable contract doesn't prove anything other than you're an imbecile who's desperate to win an argument he's losing.

 

[Asclepias]

Looks like the IP address EverCourious gave for stormyfront responds to pings. I hope someone launches a DDOS attack on it.

Looks like they are now being hosted by some scum bucket company called Cloudfare.

 

[Wry Catcher]

The anti government / libertarian ideology is foolish. Security and Freedom /
Lliberty are matters best left to The People and their representatives - and should be decided within the wisdom of these words:

"...Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes...".
​

Too much Freedom and Liberty create chaos, too much security restricts Freedom and Liberty.

​

​

 

[Asclepias]

Oh well. I guess even Cloudfare hates Stormyfronts.

http://gizmodo.com/cloudflare-ceo-on-terminating-service-to-neo-nazi-site-1797915295

"Today, Cloudflare reversed its long-held policy to remain content-neutral and booted The Daily Stormer out from behind its DDoS protection service.


“This was my decision. This is not Cloudflare’s general policy now, going forward,” Cloudflare CEO Matthew Prince told Gizmodo. “I think we have to have a conversation over what part of the infrastructure stack is right to police content.”

“The Daily Stormer site was bragging on their bulletin boards about how Cloudflare was one of them and that is the opposite of everything we believe. That was the tipping point for me.”

 

[Faun]

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.

And in fact, the baker has lost at every turn in our judicial system. They're down to their final chance as the U.S. Supreme Court has chosen to review their case.

And, if a person fails there \, they can employ passive resistance, civil disobedience; they can lobby to get the law changed. He might leave that state and go somewhere more suitable to his way of thinking. There are at least a dozen options.

Civil disobedience does not render a law unconstitutional. It merely protests a constitutional law. All laws are constitutional by default and remain so until ruled unconstitutional by our Judicial branch. The public accommodation laws that prevented the baker from discriminating against a gay couple are constitutional. The baker has so far lost in every court and has only one court remaining.

Courts only have the power to uphold unconstitutional acts.

"A nation can survive its fools and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and he carries his banners openly against the city. But the traitor moves among those within the gates freely, his sly whispers rustling through all alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears no traitor; he speaks in the accents familiar to his victim, and he wears their face and their garments and he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation; he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of a city; he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to be feared. The traitor is the plague."
Marcus Tullius Cicero, Roman Orator – 106-43 B.C.

What you advocate is treason, sir.

You're fucking deranged.

All laws are constitutional unless deemed unconstitutional by our judicial branch. Like most things I've seen you post, you have it completely ass backwards.

 

[Faun]

All laws are constitutional by default and remain so until ruled unconstitutional by our Judicial branch.

So you support letting judges repeal laws even though the constitution says "all legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a congress of the united states.".

That same Constitution also empowers a Judicial branch with judicial power over the laws of the United States.

 

[Asclepias]

All laws are constitutional by default and remain so until ruled unconstitutional by our Judicial branch.

So you support letting judges repeal laws even though the constitution says "all legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a congress of the united states.".

That same Constitution also empowers a Judicial branch with judicial power over the laws of the United States.

Why are white racists usually represented by low intellect individuals like shooterspeeds?

 

[Faun]

And in fact, the baker has lost at every turn in our judicial system. They're down to their final chance as the U.S. Supreme Court has chosen to review their case.

And, if a person fails there \, they can employ passive resistance, civil disobedience; they can lobby to get the law changed. He might leave that state and go somewhere more suitable to his way of thinking. There are at least a dozen options.

Civil disobedience does not render a law unconstitutional. It merely protests a constitutional law. All laws are constitutional by default and remain so until ruled unconstitutional by our Judicial branch. The public accommodation laws that prevented the baker from discriminating against a gay couple are constitutional. The baker has so far lost in every court and has only one court remaining.

Courts only have the power to uphold unconstitutional acts.

"A nation can survive its fools and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and he carries his banners openly against the city. But the traitor moves among those within the gates freely, his sly whispers rustling through all alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears no traitor; he speaks in the accents familiar to his victim, and he wears their face and their garments and he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation; he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of a city; he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to be feared. The traitor is the plague."
Marcus Tullius Cicero, Roman Orator – 106-43 B.C.

What you advocate is treason, sir.

I think he was referring to you with this part....

"A nation can survive its fools ..."

I'm certain he was talking about people like you - the ones who advocate treason just because some judge dressed in a robe like a lady declared something "legal."

If you don't like our legal system, too bad. You're always welcome to try another country which is more in tune with your craziness.

 

[Faun]

So you support letting judges repeal laws even though the constitution says "all legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a congress of the united states.".

Thats the job of the Judicial branch you ignorant monkey. It was provided as a check.

Really? Where does the constitution say that.? It appears to everyone else that the constitution explicitly says judges CANNOT repeal laws.!!

Article III, Section 2

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States;— between a State and Citizens of another State,—between Citizens of different States,—between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

 

[Faun]

Looks like the IP address EverCourious gave for stormyfront responds to pings. I hope someone launches a DDOS attack on it.

View attachment 148637

Looks like they are now being hosted by some scum bucket company called Cloudfare.

View attachment 148638

Cloudfare was their webhost.

 

[Faun]

All laws are constitutional by default and remain so until ruled unconstitutional by our Judicial branch.

So you support letting judges repeal laws even though the constitution says "all legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a congress of the united states.".

That same Constitution also empowers a Judicial branch with judicial power over the laws of the United States.

Why are white racists usually represented by low intellect individuals like shooterspeeds?

Because racism is abject ignorance.

 

[Asclepias]

Looks like the IP address EverCourious gave for stormyfront responds to pings. I hope someone launches a DDOS attack on it.

View attachment 148637

Looks like they are now being hosted by some scum bucket company called Cloudfare.

View attachment 148638

Cloudfare was their webhost.

Just figured that out. I should have known EverCurious was giving out wrong information yet again. I thought they found a new website hosting service.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

So where do people go to praise Hitler after all of this ?

 

[Humorme]

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

And in fact, the baker has lost at every turn in our judicial system. They're down to their final chance as the U.S. Supreme Court has chosen to review their case.

And, if a person fails there \, they can employ passive resistance, civil disobedience; they can lobby to get the law changed. He might leave that state and go somewhere more suitable to his way of thinking. There are at least a dozen options.

Civil disobedience does not render a law unconstitutional. It merely protests a constitutional law. All laws are constitutional by default and remain so until ruled unconstitutional by our Judicial branch. The public accommodation laws that prevented the baker from discriminating against a gay couple are constitutional. The baker has so far lost in every court and has only one court remaining.

Courts only have the power to uphold unconstitutional acts.

"A nation can survive its fools and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and he carries his banners openly against the city. But the traitor moves among those within the gates freely, his sly whispers rustling through all alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears no traitor; he speaks in the accents familiar to his victim, and he wears their face and their garments and he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation; he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of a city; he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to be feared. The traitor is the plague."
Marcus Tullius Cicero, Roman Orator – 106-43 B.C.

What you advocate is treason, sir.

You're fucking deranged.

All laws are constitutional unless deemed unconstitutional by our judicial branch. Like most things I've seen you post, you have it completely ass backwards.

Obviously you don't know your ass from a hole in the ground. Making stuff up and accusing me of things I didn't say aren't helping your cause.

 

[Humorme]

All laws are constitutional by default and remain so until ruled unconstitutional by our Judicial branch.

So you support letting judges repeal laws even though the constitution says "all legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a congress of the united states.".

That same Constitution also empowers a Judicial branch with judicial power over the laws of the United States.

Why are white racists usually represented by low intellect individuals like shooterspeeds?

The people that can oppose your from a purely academic point of view are locked out.

 

[Humorme]

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.

Repeating your baseless opinion that Network Solutions' terms of service is an unconscionable contract is what fails. Your opinion is worthless and you've yet to offer anything whatsoever substantiate to demonstrate your point; which lies prostrate on the floor.

Try citing some case law instead of yourself.

You repeating the same shit over and over won't make it acceptable if a free society within our de jure / lawful constitutional Republic.

I'll keep repeating it until someone proves I'm wrong.

You may as well keep your word. I've proven your position to be wrong.

<smh>

Saying an adhesion contract CAN be an unconscionable contract, without proving it IS an unconscionable contract doesn't prove anything other than you're an imbecile who's desperate to win an argument he's losing.

And if you think that a contract that requires one to forfeit their rights is NOT unconscionable, then you are a damn fool.