Why Liberals Hate Free Speech

[NYcarbineer]

How can you tell when a conservative is losing an argument?

...he's in one.

He or she as the case might be

You liberals and your diversity.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Whose free speech were conservatives respecting when they were demanding the head of the gay Teletubbie on a pike?

(yes some of my memory still works)

 

[RWNJ]

The unborn baby is not 'their body.'
It is a totally different, unique individual with it's own DNA, fingerprints, organs, etc.

That just happens to be unable to live on its own.

But it is still alive. A baby that has actually been born is also not able to live without it's mother. Does that mean we should kill it?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Liar.

You 'Liberals' are what was originally known as the Socialist Party.

You remain that.

Nope, and you've never been able to prove I'm a socialist.

But I've been generous.....I allow you to identify as any totalitarian....
communist, socialist, Liberal, Progressive, Nazi, or fascist.


You can even change the name daily!


Really....could I be more kind?

Namecalling is the sign you've lost the argument. wasn't that once your claim?

Not if I do it.

Then it is simply 'accurately describing.'

I had a professor who explained it thus:
"The master is allowed, the donkey is not."


Did you want some carrots?

Sanitize that carrot first.

You must be thinking of Bill 'the rapist' Clinton.
It was a

"The leftist usually doesn't seek to outright kill their victims, but simply to deny to people the ability to live."

Any reluctance remains only as long as they don't have total power to do exactly that.

.....then there's this:

"We must rid ourselves once and for all of the Quaker-Papist babble about the sanctity of human life." Leon Trotsky

A swift death is kinder than what the leftist generally leaves, the existence on the verge of starvation and exposure to elements. The hopelessness of toil with no possibility of gain.

“The basic cause of totalitarianism is two ideas: men’s rejection of reason in favor of faith, and of self-interest in favor of self-sacrifice.”
― Ayn Rand, We the Living

"A swift death is kinder than what the leftist generally leaves, the existence on the verge of starvation and exposure to elements."

You've got quite the point there.



"During the early 1930s every non-apparatchik in the USSR was hungry, and the peasants were starving in their millions. The zeks [prisoners] of the gulag, from 1918 to 1956, were always somewhere in between.
The mature gulag ran on food and the deprivation of food. Illuminatingly, the history of Communism keeps bringing us back to this: the scarcity or absence of food.

[In] his natural indifference to all human suffering Frenkel was an excellent Bolshevik.It was he who advised Stalin to run the gulag on the steady deprivation of food.

Again they used norms and quotas:
for the full norm: 700 grams of bread, plus soup and buckwheatfor those not attaining the norm: 400 grams of bread, plus soup

The ‘full norm' was near-unachievable (sometimes more than 200 times higher than the Tsarist equivalent).A socialist-realist superman might manage it, for a time. But you were not meant to manage it. As the zek increasingly fell further behind the norm, he weakened further too, and his ration would soon be demoted to ‘punitive' (300 grams).

As for the rations, [historian Robert] Conquest cites those of the Japanese POW camps on the River Kwai: ‘There, prisoners got a daily ration norm of 700 grams of rice, 600 of vegetables, 100 of meat, 20 of sugar, 20 of salt, and 5 of oil…';all these items were, of course, great rarities and delicacies in the archipelago.Solzhenitsyn describes a seven-ounce loaf (218 grams): ‘sticky as clay, a piece little bigger than a matchbox…'"
Martin Amis, "Koba The Dread."



Under socialism, the hero is the one who 'improves' the way of the collective, no matter the cost in human lives....or supports the Iran Nuclear Treaty.

I didn't realize liberal socialist America had gulags, or starvation. In fact it was you who said there are virtually no poor people in America.

Yes, liberal, socialist America.

So very much you don't 'realize.'

Recall the fate of Japanese-Americans under Roosevelt?

"Although FDR himself called them "concentration camps,"..."
Did the United States put its own citizens in concentration camps during WWII?

And those are where today?

Let's review...to illustrate your childish pattern....

1. You: "I didn't realize liberal socialist America had gulags, or starvation. In fact it was you who said there are virtually no poor people in America."

2. Some brilliant poster who regualrly puts you in your place...last seat in the dumb row:
"Recall the fate of Japanese-Americans under Roosevelt?

"Although FDR himself called them "concentration camps,"..."
Did the United States put its own citizens in concentration camps during WWII?



3. The court jester, you: "And those are where today?"



Your latest post has changed your status from merely a hint of stupidity to an announcement.

 

[PoliticalChic]

This thread is just a re-run of this one:

Only Fascists Assail Free Speech | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

...thus proving my point that the OP loses the argument in one thread, then runs off and waits awhile before starting the same thread over again.

Read the old thread, and enjoy how she gets demolished.

Gee....I sure hope so!

A couple of months have gone by, and you Liberal fascists still hate free speech!

253 responses in that thread, and you Liberals joined in with a chorus of "is not, is not...!"


I don't know how to thank you enough for helping me spread the truth!

You wouldn't recognize the truth if it struck you in the ass!! When you mentioned that low down, Right Wing Ann Coulter you lost all signs of credibility. Bill Maher said she wasn't so partial when she was cummin'.

I've scanned your post, hoping to find the examples that you found to be untrue....

Alas.....it turns out your post is simply one more permutation of every other Liberal's post: "is not, is noooottttttt!"


Now see if you can fathom this witticism.....

When you're dead, you don't know you're dead: it's only a reality for others.
And that relates to you: it's the same when you're stupid.

 

[Uncensored2008]

I didn't realize liberal socialist America had gulags, or starvation. In fact it was you who said there are virtually no poor people in America.

Yes, liberal, socialist America.

"Liberal socialist" is an oxymoron.

Liberalism and socialism are conflicting terms. Liberalism is based on the freedom of people to produce and sell without the need of permission from king, baron, commissioner, or apparatchik.

Liberalism is expressed in French as Laissez Faire - hands off. Most leftists are ignorant to the fact that the term is as much a social as an economic command. The Libarte held that the crown or any government must be silent on both economic and social affairs, that government exists only to protect from crime or invasion.

You are no liberal, you have no relation to liberals. You are a Communist, the polar opposite of a liberal.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Classical liberals believed that individuals needed to be protected from government, and that business/corporations/capitalists were not threat.

The horrors of the Industrial Revolution, perpetrated by the capitalists, educated the educable.

From that came modern day liberalism/socialism that realizes that government is the protector, not the threat.

Utter nonsense. Corporations were viewed as points of corruption for government from the earliest time in this nation, by the real liberals who promoted the economics and social views that PC and I promote.

As with Unions, there is nothing inherently bad in corporations, it is only when government gets in bed with either, that damage is done.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I didn't realize liberal socialist America had gulags, or starvation. In fact it was you who said there are virtually no poor people in America.

Yes, liberal, socialist America.

"Liberal socialist" is an oxymoron.

Liberalism and socialism are conflicting terms. Liberalism is based on the freedom of people to produce and sell without the need of permission from king, baron, commissioner, or apparatchik.

Liberalism is expressed in French as Laissez Faire - hands off. Most leftists are ignorant to the fact that the term is as much a social as an economic command. The Libarte held that the crown or any government must be silent on both economic and social affairs, that government exists only to protect from crime or invasion.

You are no liberal, you have no relation to liberals. You are a Communist, the polar opposite of a liberal.

You are funny, in a tedious way.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Classical liberals believed that individuals needed to be protected from government, and that business/corporations/capitalists were not threat.

The horrors of the Industrial Revolution, perpetrated by the capitalists, educated the educable.

From that came modern day liberalism/socialism that realizes that government is the protector, not the threat.

Utter nonsense. Corporations were viewed as points of corruption for government from the earliest time in this nation, by the real liberals who promoted the economics and social views that PC and I promote.

As with Unions, there is nothing inherently bad in corporations, it is only when government gets in bed with either, that damage is done.

Anarchy doesn't work.

The founders were very much in favor of government reining in corporations:

Our Hidden History of Corporations in the United States

They were also protectionist.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Nope, and you've never been able to prove I'm a socialist.

But I've been generous.....I allow you to identify as any totalitarian....
communist, socialist, Liberal, Progressive, Nazi, or fascist.


You can even change the name daily!


Really....could I be more kind?

Namecalling is the sign you've lost the argument. wasn't that once your claim?

Not if I do it.

Then it is simply 'accurately describing.'

I had a professor who explained it thus:
"The master is allowed, the donkey is not."


Did you want some carrots?

Sanitize that carrot first.

You must be thinking of Bill 'the rapist' Clinton.
It was a

A swift death is kinder than what the leftist generally leaves, the existence on the verge of starvation and exposure to elements. The hopelessness of toil with no possibility of gain.

“The basic cause of totalitarianism is two ideas: men’s rejection of reason in favor of faith, and of self-interest in favor of self-sacrifice.”
― Ayn Rand, We the Living

"A swift death is kinder than what the leftist generally leaves, the existence on the verge of starvation and exposure to elements."

You've got quite the point there.



"During the early 1930s every non-apparatchik in the USSR was hungry, and the peasants were starving in their millions. The zeks [prisoners] of the gulag, from 1918 to 1956, were always somewhere in between.
The mature gulag ran on food and the deprivation of food. Illuminatingly, the history of Communism keeps bringing us back to this: the scarcity or absence of food.

[In] his natural indifference to all human suffering Frenkel was an excellent Bolshevik.It was he who advised Stalin to run the gulag on the steady deprivation of food.

Again they used norms and quotas:
for the full norm: 700 grams of bread, plus soup and buckwheatfor those not attaining the norm: 400 grams of bread, plus soup

The ‘full norm' was near-unachievable (sometimes more than 200 times higher than the Tsarist equivalent).A socialist-realist superman might manage it, for a time. But you were not meant to manage it. As the zek increasingly fell further behind the norm, he weakened further too, and his ration would soon be demoted to ‘punitive' (300 grams).

As for the rations, [historian Robert] Conquest cites those of the Japanese POW camps on the River Kwai: ‘There, prisoners got a daily ration norm of 700 grams of rice, 600 of vegetables, 100 of meat, 20 of sugar, 20 of salt, and 5 of oil…';all these items were, of course, great rarities and delicacies in the archipelago.Solzhenitsyn describes a seven-ounce loaf (218 grams): ‘sticky as clay, a piece little bigger than a matchbox…'"
Martin Amis, "Koba The Dread."



Under socialism, the hero is the one who 'improves' the way of the collective, no matter the cost in human lives....or supports the Iran Nuclear Treaty.

I didn't realize liberal socialist America had gulags, or starvation. In fact it was you who said there are virtually no poor people in America.

Yes, liberal, socialist America.

So very much you don't 'realize.'

Recall the fate of Japanese-Americans under Roosevelt?

"Although FDR himself called them "concentration camps,"..."
Did the United States put its own citizens in concentration camps during WWII?

And those are where today?

Let's review...to illustrate your childish pattern....

1. You: "I didn't realize liberal socialist America had gulags, or starvation. In fact it was you who said there are virtually no poor people in America."

2. Some brilliant poster who regualrly puts you in your place...last seat in the dumb row:
"Recall the fate of Japanese-Americans under Roosevelt?

"Although FDR himself called them "concentration camps,"..."
Did the United States put its own citizens in concentration camps during WWII?



3. The court jester, you: "And those are where today?"



Your latest post has changed your status from merely a hint of stupidity to an announcement.

Hey I found a picture of one of those American gulags:

 

[RWNJ]

This thread is just a re-run of this one:

Only Fascists Assail Free Speech | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

...thus proving my point that the OP loses the argument in one thread, then runs off and waits awhile before starting the same thread over again.

Read the old thread, and enjoy how she gets demolished.

Gee....I sure hope so!

A couple of months have gone by, and you Liberal fascists still hate free speech!

253 responses in that thread, and you Liberals joined in with a chorus of "is not, is not...!"


I don't know how to thank you enough for helping me spread the truth!

You wouldn't recognize the truth if it struck you in the ass!! When you mentioned that low down, Right Wing Ann Coulter you lost all signs of credibility. Bill Maher said she wasn't so partial when she was cummin'.

I've scanned your post, hoping to find the examples that you found to be untrue....

Alas.....it turns out your post is simply one more permutation of every other Liberal's post: "is not, is noooottttttt!"


Now see if you can fathom this witticism.....

When you're dead, you don't know you're dead: it's only a reality for others.
And that relates to you: it's the same when you're stupid.

I stole that one for someone on another forum. Hope you don't mind, but he needs to hear this. It will probably bounce off his impenetrable shell of 'just plain stupid' but at least I'll get a chuckle from the rest of the forum.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Nope, and you've never been able to prove I'm a socialist.

But I've been generous.....I allow you to identify as any totalitarian....
communist, socialist, Liberal, Progressive, Nazi, or fascist.


You can even change the name daily!


Really....could I be more kind?

Namecalling is the sign you've lost the argument. wasn't that once your claim?

Not if I do it.

Then it is simply 'accurately describing.'

I had a professor who explained it thus:
"The master is allowed, the donkey is not."


Did you want some carrots?

Sanitize that carrot first.

You must be thinking of Bill 'the rapist' Clinton.
It was a

A swift death is kinder than what the leftist generally leaves, the existence on the verge of starvation and exposure to elements. The hopelessness of toil with no possibility of gain.

“The basic cause of totalitarianism is two ideas: men’s rejection of reason in favor of faith, and of self-interest in favor of self-sacrifice.”
― Ayn Rand, We the Living

"A swift death is kinder than what the leftist generally leaves, the existence on the verge of starvation and exposure to elements."

You've got quite the point there.



"During the early 1930s every non-apparatchik in the USSR was hungry, and the peasants were starving in their millions. The zeks [prisoners] of the gulag, from 1918 to 1956, were always somewhere in between.
The mature gulag ran on food and the deprivation of food. Illuminatingly, the history of Communism keeps bringing us back to this: the scarcity or absence of food.

[In] his natural indifference to all human suffering Frenkel was an excellent Bolshevik.It was he who advised Stalin to run the gulag on the steady deprivation of food.

Again they used norms and quotas:
for the full norm: 700 grams of bread, plus soup and buckwheatfor those not attaining the norm: 400 grams of bread, plus soup

The ‘full norm' was near-unachievable (sometimes more than 200 times higher than the Tsarist equivalent).A socialist-realist superman might manage it, for a time. But you were not meant to manage it. As the zek increasingly fell further behind the norm, he weakened further too, and his ration would soon be demoted to ‘punitive' (300 grams).

As for the rations, [historian Robert] Conquest cites those of the Japanese POW camps on the River Kwai: ‘There, prisoners got a daily ration norm of 700 grams of rice, 600 of vegetables, 100 of meat, 20 of sugar, 20 of salt, and 5 of oil…';all these items were, of course, great rarities and delicacies in the archipelago.Solzhenitsyn describes a seven-ounce loaf (218 grams): ‘sticky as clay, a piece little bigger than a matchbox…'"
Martin Amis, "Koba The Dread."



Under socialism, the hero is the one who 'improves' the way of the collective, no matter the cost in human lives....or supports the Iran Nuclear Treaty.

I didn't realize liberal socialist America had gulags, or starvation. In fact it was you who said there are virtually no poor people in America.

Yes, liberal, socialist America.

So very much you don't 'realize.'

Recall the fate of Japanese-Americans under Roosevelt?

"Although FDR himself called them "concentration camps,"..."
Did the United States put its own citizens in concentration camps during WWII?

And those are where today?

Let's review...to illustrate your childish pattern....

1. You: "I didn't realize liberal socialist America had gulags, or starvation. In fact it was you who said there are virtually no poor people in America."

2. Some brilliant poster who regualrly puts you in your place...last seat in the dumb row:
"Recall the fate of Japanese-Americans under Roosevelt?

"Although FDR himself called them "concentration camps,"..."
Did the United States put its own citizens in concentration camps during WWII?



3. The court jester, you: "And those are where today?"



Your latest post has changed your status from merely a hint of stupidity to an announcement.

The internment camps were ruled constitutional:

"Korematsu was not excluded from the Military Area because of hostility to him or his race. He was excluded because we are at war with the Japanese Empire, because the properly constituted military authorities feared an invasion of our West Coast and felt constrained to take proper security measures, because they decided that the military urgency of the situation demanded that all citizens of Japanese ancestry be segregated from the West Coast temporarily, and, finally, because Congress, reposing its confidence in this time of war in our military leaders — as inevitably it must — determined that they should have the power to do just this."

A very conservative ruling, wouldn't you say?

...submitting to the military's concern for security, and submitting to the will of the Congress?

Sounds EXACTLY like modern conservative reasoning.

 

[NYcarbineer]

[

When you're dead, you don't know you're dead: it's only a reality for others.
And that relates to you: it's the same when you're stupid.

Now you're leaning on atheists for your 'wit'?

classic.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Anarchy doesn't work.

No one called for anarchy.

The founders were very much in favor of government reining in corporations:

Our Hidden History of Corporations in the United States

They were also protectionist.

I already pointed that out.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Anarchy doesn't work.

No one called for anarchy.

The founders were very much in favor of government reining in corporations:

Our Hidden History of Corporations in the United States

They were also protectionist.

I already pointed that out.

You should read the link before you agree with it.

 

[Uncensored2008]

[

You should read the link before you agree with it.

I didn't agree with the link, though most of what they say is factual. I said that I already pointed out that the liberals - the real ones, opposed GOVERNMENT encumbered corporations.

Incorporation is simply a means of raising capital for a business venture. Where problems arise is when the entity becomes large enough to buy favors from the state. I almost wrote "corrupt state," but that seems redundant.

As with their natural counterbalance, the issue is when monopolies and trusts are formed, particularly with government. Remember, no monopoly (save natural monopoly) can exist absent collusion of government.

 

[NYcarbineer]

[

You should read the link before you agree with it.

I didn't agree with the link, though most of what they say is factual. I said that I already pointed out that the liberals - the real ones, opposed GOVERNMENT encumbered corporations.

Incorporation is simply a means of raising capital for a business venture. Where problems arise is when the entity becomes large enough to buy favors from the state. I almost wrote "corrupt state," but that seems redundant.

As with their natural counterbalance, the issue is when monopolies and trusts are formed, particularly with government. Remember, no monopoly (save natural monopoly) can exist absent collusion of government.

Roosevelt was a trust buster not a trust maker.

 

[NYcarbineer]

But I've been generous.....I allow you to identify as any totalitarian....
communist, socialist, Liberal, Progressive, Nazi, or fascist.


You can even change the name daily!


Really....could I be more kind?

Namecalling is the sign you've lost the argument. wasn't that once your claim?

Not if I do it.

Then it is simply 'accurately describing.'

I had a professor who explained it thus:
"The master is allowed, the donkey is not."


Did you want some carrots?

Sanitize that carrot first.

You must be thinking of Bill 'the rapist' Clinton.
It was a

"A swift death is kinder than what the leftist generally leaves, the existence on the verge of starvation and exposure to elements."

You've got quite the point there.



"During the early 1930s every non-apparatchik in the USSR was hungry, and the peasants were starving in their millions. The zeks [prisoners] of the gulag, from 1918 to 1956, were always somewhere in between.
The mature gulag ran on food and the deprivation of food. Illuminatingly, the history of Communism keeps bringing us back to this: the scarcity or absence of food.

[In] his natural indifference to all human suffering Frenkel was an excellent Bolshevik.It was he who advised Stalin to run the gulag on the steady deprivation of food.

Again they used norms and quotas:
for the full norm: 700 grams of bread, plus soup and buckwheatfor those not attaining the norm: 400 grams of bread, plus soup

The ‘full norm' was near-unachievable (sometimes more than 200 times higher than the Tsarist equivalent).A socialist-realist superman might manage it, for a time. But you were not meant to manage it. As the zek increasingly fell further behind the norm, he weakened further too, and his ration would soon be demoted to ‘punitive' (300 grams).

As for the rations, [historian Robert] Conquest cites those of the Japanese POW camps on the River Kwai: ‘There, prisoners got a daily ration norm of 700 grams of rice, 600 of vegetables, 100 of meat, 20 of sugar, 20 of salt, and 5 of oil…';all these items were, of course, great rarities and delicacies in the archipelago.Solzhenitsyn describes a seven-ounce loaf (218 grams): ‘sticky as clay, a piece little bigger than a matchbox…'"
Martin Amis, "Koba The Dread."



Under socialism, the hero is the one who 'improves' the way of the collective, no matter the cost in human lives....or supports the Iran Nuclear Treaty.

I didn't realize liberal socialist America had gulags, or starvation. In fact it was you who said there are virtually no poor people in America.

Yes, liberal, socialist America.

So very much you don't 'realize.'

Recall the fate of Japanese-Americans under Roosevelt?

"Although FDR himself called them "concentration camps,"..."
Did the United States put its own citizens in concentration camps during WWII?

And those are where today?

Let's review...to illustrate your childish pattern....

1. You: "I didn't realize liberal socialist America had gulags, or starvation. In fact it was you who said there are virtually no poor people in America."

2. Some brilliant poster who regualrly puts you in your place...last seat in the dumb row:
"Recall the fate of Japanese-Americans under Roosevelt?

"Although FDR himself called them "concentration camps,"..."
Did the United States put its own citizens in concentration camps during WWII?



3. The court jester, you: "And those are where today?"



Your latest post has changed your status from merely a hint of stupidity to an announcement.

Hey I found a picture of one of those American gulags:

Hey PC, how about you post your picture again so we can have a separated at birth laugh?

 

[RWNJ]

[

When you're dead, you don't know you're dead: it's only a reality for others.
And that relates to you: it's the same when you're stupid.

Now you're leaning on atheists for your 'wit'?

classic.

Even atheists get it right sometimes. That quote applies to you. You're stupid and you don't even know it. But everyone else does.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Roosevelt was a trust buster not a trust maker.

What are you on about?

Teddy hated Carnegie, but the myth of his pure intentions is just that, a myth. The Roosevelt fortune was threatened by U.S. Steel. His motives were largely driven by the desire to protect the family fortune.