Why Liberals Hate Free Speech

[ThoughtCrimes]

Pulling federal funding to universities for speech it does not agree with would be unconstitutional because there is no compelling interest and it would be a very restrictive mean even if there was a compelling interest.

Any university or college who accepts government money is bound by the same rules the government is. It cannot decide what speech it does or does not like.

So then why can the same government, under Ben Carson, pull funding for speech it doesn't agree with?

Let's see how much 'constitutional law' you actually learned.

Where does the Constitution give the federal government the authority to use tax money to support universities and colleges?

Looks like you'll have to give back that 'A,' huh?

You so very smugly asked another, "Where does the Constitution give the federal government the authority to use tax money to support universities and colleges?" [Emphasis Added]

To even those with an inadequate understanding of the Constitution, as yourself, one should be able to recall the enumerated powers of Congress and instantly recall the "necessary and proper" clause of Article I, Section 1, Clause 18.

Perhaps you may have heard of one or two of the pieces of legislation passed by Congress and signed into law:
1. Morrill Land-Grant Act (1862), establishing Land-Grant Collages;
2. Hatch Act (1887)
3. Agricultural Collage Act (1890)
4. Smith-Lever Act (1914)

Now play nice, and go to the back of the class, dear! There's a good little girl!

Well...glad you dropped by for a remedial education.

This is the class where, first, I instruct you....then give you the failing grade you deserve for your post.


Take notes:
Necessary and Proper is restricted to the specific authority of Article 1, second 8: it is the vehicle for the enumerated powers.

As you cannot, as I stated, correctly, earlier.....show any of the enumerated powers that give authority to the federal government to fund those Liberal institutions known, laughably, as 'universities'.....you remain the failure that I regularly identify you as.

1. Evidence for this placement can be construed by Article I, section 9, which limits powers granted to Congress in section 8, and thus, suggests that spending power has already been conferred by Article I, section 8.
2. Under this view, the test for whether spending is permissible under the Constitution is simply to see if the spending is necessary and proper in order to carry out any or all of the enumerated powers.
3. South Dakota v. Dole…Court found that withholding funds to keep drinking age at 21 was a ‘pressure’ not a compulsion.’

'Necessary and Proper' doesn’t expand any enumerated power, or expand any congressional power.


Professor Randy Barnett: “I have always been attracted to Madison’s view that there is no freestanding Spending Clause, but only a power to spend what is necessary and properly incident to the enumerated powers.

In the future, do your homework so that I don't have to discipline you again.

I don't know how many cereal box tops you had to send in for your law degree from "We Saw Ya Coming" University, but you sure have displayed your innate ability to try to baffle with heaping mounds of buffalo dung!

1. Your attempt to link it ONLY to the spending clause is nothing more than ignorant desperation! In that same clause locate the words "...common defense and general welfare..." and place them in the proper context! We can go with that also, and you're still wrong! Your reference to Article I Section 9 is absolutely absurd! It is related to the previous Section in no wise whatsoever, save being its antithesis! Section 8 deals exclusively with the enumerated powers of Congress and Section 9 deals with powers absolutely denied Congress!
2. SCOTUS - U.S. v. Butler (1936):
Syllabus:
"The power to tax and spend is a separate and distinct power; its exercise is not confined to the fields committed to Congress by the other enumerated grants of power, but it is limited by the requirement that it shall be exercised to provide for the general welfare of the United States." [Emphasis Added]
Opinion:
"Nevertheless the Government asserts that warrant is found in this clause for the adoption of the Agricultural Adjustment Act. The argument is that Congress may appropriate and authorize the spending of moneys for the "general welfare"; that the phrase should be liberally [p65] construed to cover anything conducive to national welfare; that decision as to what will promote such welfare rests with Congress alone, and the courts may not review its determination, and finally that the appropriation under attack was, in fact, for the general welfare of the United States." [Emphasis Added]
AND {Edit}
"Hamilton, on the other hand, maintained the clause confers a power separate and distinct from those later enumerated, is not restricted in meaning by the grant of them, and Congress consequently has a substantive power to tax and to appropriate, [p66] limited only by the requirement that it shall be exercised to provide for the general welfare of the United States." [Emphasis Added]
3. South Dakota v. Dole dealt with an unconstitutional withholding of appropriations as a punishment to the State. Totally non sequitur.

You always try to baffle others with bat, buffalo and/or bull shit, but who's counting! Scheeesh!

It should not have been necessary to point out that the 12th, 13th, 16th, and 17th Clauses of Article I, Section 1 would be obviously link to the necessary and proper clause as they all relate to the common defense and establishment of the Army, the Navy and the militia along with all the necessary infrastructure INCLUDING the Military Academies. They're the first examples of institutions of higher learning established through Congressional action using the IMPLIED power of the necessary and proper clause.

You wrote, " 'Necessary and Proper' doesn’t expand any enumerated power, or expand any congressional power."

Justice Roberts, cited above says you are dead freakin' wrong Chica, and that the tax and spend provision of clause the first is a separate and distinct power! Are you smarter than those who have served on the High Court, Chica?

Perhaps you could pass on to your Professor Randy that he is freakin' wrong also as pointed out by Justice Roberts in US v. Butler above. Perhaps you should get some other coaches that have a better grasp on case law and the Law of the Land.

In your closing line you chided, "In the future, do your homework so that I don't have to discipline you again."

Pretty big words for someone with pie all over their face now, huh Chica! Such bloody Hubris!

 

[Uncensored2008]

Any university or college who accepts government money is bound by the same rules the government is. It cannot decide what speech it does or does not like.

So then why can the same government, under Ben Carson, pull funding for speech it doesn't agree with?

Let's see how much 'constitutional law' you actually learned.

Where does the Constitution give the federal government the authority to use tax money to support universities and colleges?

Looks like you'll have to give back that 'A,' huh?

You so very smugly asked another, "Where does the Constitution give the federal government the authority to use tax money to support universities and colleges?" [Emphasis Added]

To even those with an inadequate understanding of the Constitution, as yourself, one should be able to recall the enumerated powers of Congress and instantly recall the "necessary and proper" clause of Article I, Section 1, Clause 18.

Perhaps you may have heard of one or two of the pieces of legislation passed by Congress and signed into law:
1. Morrill Land-Grant Act (1862), establishing Land-Grant Collages;
2. Hatch Act (1887)
3. Agricultural Collage Act (1890)
4. Smith-Lever Act (1914)

Now play nice, and go to the back of the class, dear! There's a good little girl!

Well...glad you dropped by for a remedial education.

This is the class where, first, I instruct you....then give you the failing grade you deserve for your post.


Take notes:
Necessary and Proper is restricted to the specific authority of Article 1, second 8: it is the vehicle for the enumerated powers.

As you cannot, as I stated, correctly, earlier.....show any of the enumerated powers that give authority to the federal government to fund those Liberal institutions known, laughably, as 'universities'.....you remain the failure that I regularly identify you as.

1. Evidence for this placement can be construed by Article I, section 9, which limits powers granted to Congress in section 8, and thus, suggests that spending power has already been conferred by Article I, section 8.
2. Under this view, the test for whether spending is permissible under the Constitution is simply to see if the spending is necessary and proper in order to carry out any or all of the enumerated powers.
3. South Dakota v. Dole…Court found that withholding funds to keep drinking age at 21 was a ‘pressure’ not a compulsion.’

'Necessary and Proper' doesn’t expand any enumerated power, or expand any congressional power.


Professor Randy Barnett: “I have always been attracted to Madison’s view that there is no freestanding Spending Clause, but only a power to spend what is necessary and properly incident to the enumerated powers.

In the future, do your homework so that I don't have to discipline you again.

I don't know how many cereal box tops you had to send in for your law degree from "We Saw Ya Coming" University, but you sure have displayed your innate ability to try to baffle with heaping mounds of buffalo dung!

1. Your attempt to link it ONLY to the spending clause is nothing more than ignorant desperation! In that same clause locate the words "...common defense and general welfare..." and place them in the proper context! We can go with that also, and you're still wrong! Your reference to Article I Section 9 is absolutely absurd! It is related to the previous Section in no wise whatsoever, save being its antithesis! Section 8 deals exclusively with the enumerated powers of Congress and Section 9 deals with powers absolutely denied Congress!
2. SCOTUS - U.S. v. Butler (1936):
Syllabus:
"The power to tax and spend is a separate and distinct power; its exercise is not confined to the fields committed to Congress by the other enumerated grants of power, but it is limited by the requirement that it shall be exercised to provide for the general welfare of the United States." [Emphasis Added]
Opinion:
"Nevertheless the Government asserts that warrant is found in this clause for the adoption of the Agricultural Adjustment Act. The argument is that Congress may appropriate and authorize the spending of moneys for the "general welfare"; that the phrase should be liberally [p65] construed to cover anything conducive to national welfare; that decision as to what will promote such welfare rests with Congress alone, and the courts may not review its determination, and finally that the appropriation under attack was, in fact, for the general welfare of the United States." [Emphasis Added]
3. South Dakota v. Dole dealt with an unconstitutional withholding of appropriations as a punishment to the State. Totally non sequitur.

You always try to baffle others with bat, buffalo and/or bull shit, but who's counting! Scheeesh!

It should not have been necessary to point out that the 12th, 13th, 16th, and 17th Clauses of Article I, Section 1 would be obviously link to the necessary and proper clause as they all relate to the common defense and establishment of the Army, the Navy and the militia along with all the necessary infrastructure INCLUDING the Military Academies. They're the first examples of institutions of higher learning established through Congressional action using the IMPLIED power of the necessary and proper clause.

You wrote, " 'Necessary and Proper' doesn’t expand any enumerated power, or expand any congressional power."

Justice Roberts, cited above says you are dead freakin' wrong Chica, and that the tax and spend provision of clause the first is a separate and distinct power! Are you smarter than those who have served on the High Court, Chica?

Perhaps you could pass on to your Professor Randy that he is freakin' wrong also as pointed out by Justice Roberts in US v. Butler above. Perhaps you should get some other coaches that have a better grasp on case law and the Law of the Land.

In your closing line you chided, "In the future, do your homework so that I don't have to discipline you again."

Pretty big words for someone with pie all over their face now, huh Chica! Such bloody Hubris!

I sense an ass whooping coming your way in the near future.....

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

So then why can the same government, under Ben Carson, pull funding for speech it doesn't agree with?

Let's see how much 'constitutional law' you actually learned.

Where does the Constitution give the federal government the authority to use tax money to support universities and colleges?

Looks like you'll have to give back that 'A,' huh?

You so very smugly asked another, "Where does the Constitution give the federal government the authority to use tax money to support universities and colleges?" [Emphasis Added]

To even those with an inadequate understanding of the Constitution, as yourself, one should be able to recall the enumerated powers of Congress and instantly recall the "necessary and proper" clause of Article I, Section 1, Clause 18.

Perhaps you may have heard of one or two of the pieces of legislation passed by Congress and signed into law:
1. Morrill Land-Grant Act (1862), establishing Land-Grant Collages;
2. Hatch Act (1887)
3. Agricultural Collage Act (1890)
4. Smith-Lever Act (1914)

Now play nice, and go to the back of the class, dear! There's a good little girl!

Well...glad you dropped by for a remedial education.

This is the class where, first, I instruct you....then give you the failing grade you deserve for your post.


Take notes:
Necessary and Proper is restricted to the specific authority of Article 1, second 8: it is the vehicle for the enumerated powers.

As you cannot, as I stated, correctly, earlier.....show any of the enumerated powers that give authority to the federal government to fund those Liberal institutions known, laughably, as 'universities'.....you remain the failure that I regularly identify you as.

1. Evidence for this placement can be construed by Article I, section 9, which limits powers granted to Congress in section 8, and thus, suggests that spending power has already been conferred by Article I, section 8.
2. Under this view, the test for whether spending is permissible under the Constitution is simply to see if the spending is necessary and proper in order to carry out any or all of the enumerated powers.
3. South Dakota v. Dole…Court found that withholding funds to keep drinking age at 21 was a ‘pressure’ not a compulsion.’

'Necessary and Proper' doesn’t expand any enumerated power, or expand any congressional power.


Professor Randy Barnett: “I have always been attracted to Madison’s view that there is no freestanding Spending Clause, but only a power to spend what is necessary and properly incident to the enumerated powers.

In the future, do your homework so that I don't have to discipline you again.

I don't know how many cereal box tops you had to send in for your law degree from "We Saw Ya Coming" University, but you sure have displayed your innate ability to try to baffle with heaping mounds of buffalo dung!

1. Your attempt to link it ONLY to the spending clause is nothing more than ignorant desperation! In that same clause locate the words "...common defense and general welfare..." and place them in the proper context! We can go with that also, and you're still wrong! Your reference to Article I Section 9 is absolutely absurd! It is related to the previous Section in no wise whatsoever, save being its antithesis! Section 8 deals exclusively with the enumerated powers of Congress and Section 9 deals with powers absolutely denied Congress!
2. SCOTUS - U.S. v. Butler (1936):
Syllabus:
"The power to tax and spend is a separate and distinct power; its exercise is not confined to the fields committed to Congress by the other enumerated grants of power, but it is limited by the requirement that it shall be exercised to provide for the general welfare of the United States." [Emphasis Added]
Opinion:
"Nevertheless the Government asserts that warrant is found in this clause for the adoption of the Agricultural Adjustment Act. The argument is that Congress may appropriate and authorize the spending of moneys for the "general welfare"; that the phrase should be liberally [p65] construed to cover anything conducive to national welfare; that decision as to what will promote such welfare rests with Congress alone, and the courts may not review its determination, and finally that the appropriation under attack was, in fact, for the general welfare of the United States." [Emphasis Added]
3. South Dakota v. Dole dealt with an unconstitutional withholding of appropriations as a punishment to the State. Totally non sequitur.

You always try to baffle others with bat, buffalo and/or bull shit, but who's counting! Scheeesh!

It should not have been necessary to point out that the 12th, 13th, 16th, and 17th Clauses of Article I, Section 1 would be obviously link to the necessary and proper clause as they all relate to the common defense and establishment of the Army, the Navy and the militia along with all the necessary infrastructure INCLUDING the Military Academies. They're the first examples of institutions of higher learning established through Congressional action using the IMPLIED power of the necessary and proper clause.

You wrote, " 'Necessary and Proper' doesn’t expand any enumerated power, or expand any congressional power."

Justice Roberts, cited above says you are dead freakin' wrong Chica, and that the tax and spend provision of clause the first is a separate and distinct power! Are you smarter than those who have served on the High Court, Chica?

Perhaps you could pass on to your Professor Randy that he is freakin' wrong also as pointed out by Justice Roberts in US v. Butler above. Perhaps you should get some other coaches that have a better grasp on case law and the Law of the Land.

In your closing line you chided, "In the future, do your homework so that I don't have to discipline you again."

Pretty big words for someone with pie all over their face now, huh Chica! Such bloody Hubris!

I sense an ass whooping coming your way in the near future.....

Damn, but you are a gadfly!

 

[Uncensored2008]

Damn, but you are a gadfly!

What I know is you pulled the tail of a she-wolf.

I don't always agree with PC, but she has tenacity.

 

[Campbell]

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?

It's not complicated....let the woman who is effected and whose business it is work it out with her doctor. It's none of anybody else's god damned business.

 

[TemplarKormac]

2. SCOTUS - U.S. v. Butler (1936):
Syllabus:
"The power to tax and spend is a separate and distinct power; its exercise is not confined to the fields committed to Congress by the other enumerated grants of power, but it is limited by the requirement that it shall be exercised to provide for the general welfare of the United States." [Emphasis Added]
Opinion:
"Nevertheless the Government asserts that warrant is found in this clause for the adoption of the Agricultural Adjustment Act. The argument is that Congress may appropriate and authorize the spending of moneys for the "general welfare"; that the phrase should be liberally [p65] construed to cover anything conducive to national welfare; that decision as to what will promote such welfare rests with Congress alone, and the courts may not review its determination, and finally that the appropriation under attack was, in fact, for the general welfare of the United States." [Emphasis Added]

Your argument relies on what seems to be your definition of "general welfare." I would be interested in a further explanation...

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

Damn, but you are a gadfly!

What I know is you pulled the tail of a she-wolf.

I don't always agree with PC, but she has tenacity.

I would never confuse tenacity with indifference to honesty, good character or outright unwarranted chutzpah.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

2. SCOTUS - U.S. v. Butler (1936):
Syllabus:
"The power to tax and spend is a separate and distinct power; its exercise is not confined to the fields committed to Congress by the other enumerated grants of power, but it is limited by the requirement that it shall be exercised to provide for the general welfare of the United States." [Emphasis Added]
Opinion:
"Nevertheless the Government asserts that warrant is found in this clause for the adoption of the Agricultural Adjustment Act. The argument is that Congress may appropriate and authorize the spending of moneys for the "general welfare"; that the phrase should be liberally [p65] construed to cover anything conducive to national welfare; that decision as to what will promote such welfare rests with Congress alone, and the courts may not review its determination, and finally that the appropriation under attack was, in fact, for the general welfare of the United States." [Emphasis Added]

Your argument relies on what seems to be your definition of "general welfare." I would be interested in a further explanation...

It's not my opinion of the case I cited or the definition of "the general welfare" in Art.I, Sec 1, Cls 1. It was the opinion of SCOTUS in Jan 1936 as written by Justice Owen Roberts, which has now become the Law of the Land. I can't take credit for any wisdom which came before my birth or after that did not spring from my own mind. That would be dishonest.

You can read the opinion of Justice Roberts in US v. Butler here for his reasoning and logic:
United States v. Butler

 

[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.

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.

Oh listen to you. Such insight.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

The GOP sees very few lives as sacred. That's why they are so pro-war and pro-capital punishment. Truly pro-life people are neither.

You are a known advocate of genocide, upon what rationale do you propose to lecture others on the value of life?

To kill a murderer or rapist as punishment for heinous crime is a far cry from slaughtering the innocent for political gain as you advocate.

I advocate for species-cide, the death of all humanity, but I know what is and isn't pro-life.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Classical liberals did not invent these freedoms. They simply decided to place on paper( The Constitution of the US) what was already a right.
Classical liberals believed in freedom and liberty for all. They also emphasized that freedom and liberty is for the individual. Not to be used to pit one group of people against another.
Modern liberals do this. They create conflict by herding people into groups, causing these groups to view each other in negative ways.

A modern liberal is the same as a liberal 230 years ago, only much smarter and dealing with a much different world.

That's not even close to accurate. In fact its LIE...

Nope. I'm a liberal so I would know.

You know nothing of classical liberalism. You are in fact a polar opposite of the concept.

How would you know? Oh wait, you don't.

I know because unlike you I do research. You just spew denials.
Stop arguing. You are wrong.
Period....

 

[PaintMyHouse]

A modern liberal is the same as a liberal 230 years ago, only much smarter and dealing with a much different world.

That's not even close to accurate. In fact its LIE...

Nope. I'm a liberal so I would know.

You know nothing of classical liberalism. You are in fact a polar opposite of the concept.

How would you know? Oh wait, you don't.

I know because unlike you I do research. You just spew denials.
Stop arguing. You are wrong.
Period....

Show us said research? Oh wait, you have none.

 

[thereisnospoon]

PC can't understand that when you ban the nation from declaring itself a ________ religious nation, Church and State have been separated. There's no hope she will understand that free speech doesn't mean all speech.

Seems they don't teach that, in Korea...

" when you ban the nation from declaring itself a ________ religious nation, ..."

Never happened.

Caught you lying again.

See the First Amendment, the one that bans the US from declaring itself a _____ religious nation.

Jefferson, Madison, and the "wall of separation"
The phrase "[A] hedge or wall of separation between the garden of the church and the wilderness of the world" was first used by Baptist theologian Roger Williams, the founder of the colony of Rhode Island, in his 1644 book The Bloody Tenent of Persecution.[13][14] The phrase was later used by Thomas Jefferson as a description of the First Amendment and its restriction on the legislative branch of the federal government, in an 1802 letter[15] to the Danbury Baptists (a religious minority concerned about the dominant position of the Congregationalist church in Connecticut):

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their "legislature" should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

Jefferson's letter was in reply to a letter[16] that he had received from the Danbury Baptist Association dated October 7, 1801. In an 1808 letter to Virginia Baptists, Jefferson would use the same theme:

We have solved, by fair experiment, the great and interesting question whether freedom of religion is compatible with order in government and obedience to the laws. And we have experienced the quiet as well as the comfort which results from leaving every one to profess freely and openly those principles of religion which are the inductions of his own reason and the serious convictions of his own inquiries.

Jefferson and James Madison's conceptions of separation have long been debated. Jefferson refused to issue Proclamations of Thanksgiving sent to him by Congress during his presidency, though he did issue a Thanksgiving and Prayer proclamation as Governor of Virginia.[17][18] Madison issued four religious proclamations while President,[19] but vetoed two bills on the grounds they violated the first amendment.[20] On the other hand, both Jefferson and Madison attended religious services at the Capitol.[21] Years before the ratification of the Constitution, Madison contended "Because if Religion be exempt from the authority of the Society at large, still less can it be subject to that of the Legislative Body."[22] After retiring from the presidency, Madison wrote of "total separation of the church from the state."[23] " "Strongly guarded as is the separation between Religion & Govt in the Constitution of the United States," Madison wrote,[24] and he declared, "practical distinction between Religion and Civil Government is essential to the purity of both, and as guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States."[25] In a letter to Edward Livingston Madison further expanded, "We are teaching the world the great truth that Govts. do better without Kings & Nobles than with them. The merit will be doubled by the other lesson that Religion flourishes in greater purity, without than with the aid of Govt."[26] Madison's original draft of the Bill of Rights had included provisions binding the States, as well as the Federal Government, from an establishment of religion, but the House did not pass them.[citation needed]

Jefferson's opponents said his position was the destruction and the governmental rejection of Christianity, but this was a caricature.[27] In setting up the University of Virginia, Jefferson encouraged all the separate sects to have preachers of their own, though there was a constitutional ban on the State supporting a Professorship of Divinity, arising from his own Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom.[28] Some have argued that this arrangement was "fully compatible with Jefferson's views on the separation of church and state;"[29] however, others point to Jefferson's support for a scheme in which students at the University would attend religious worship each morning as evidence that his views were not consistent with strict separation.[30] Still other scholars, such as Mark David Hall, attempt to sidestep the whole issue by arguing that American jurisprudence focuses too narrowly on this one Jeffersonian letter while failing to account for other relevant history[31]

Jefferson's letter entered American jurisprudence in the 1878 Mormon polygamy case Reynolds v. U.S., in which the court cited Jefferson and Madison, seeking a legal definition for the word religion. Writing for the majority, Justice Stephen Johnson Field cited Jefferson's Letter to the Danbury Baptists to state that "Congress was deprived of all legislative power over mere opinion, but was left free to reach actions which were in violation of social duties or subversive of good order."[32] Considering this, the court ruled that outlawing polygamy was constitutional.
Separation of church and state in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Which is all concisely put in the First Amendment. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"..
You people on the left have conveniently ignored the part after the comma....And you've twisted that to mean "freedom FROM religion.....
Two things. There is no such thing as "separation of church and state"....There is no right to freedom from being exposed to religion...
And finally, you may not with respect to government institutions and those funded by tax dollars may favor one religion over another. Nor is it legal to promote ANY religion.....

 

[thereisnospoon]

That's not even close to accurate. In fact its LIE...

Nope. I'm a liberal so I would know.

You know nothing of classical liberalism. You are in fact a polar opposite of the concept.

How would you know? Oh wait, you don't.

I know because unlike you I do research. You just spew denials.
Stop arguing. You are wrong.
Period....

Show us said research? Oh wait, you have none.

Please. You were told to stop arguing.
Now, is there anything else you'd like to torture?

 

[thereisnospoon]

Classical liberals did not invent these freedoms. They simply decided to place on paper( The Constitution of the US) what was already a right.
Classical liberals believed in freedom and liberty for all. They also emphasized that freedom and liberty is for the individual. Not to be used to pit one group of people against another.
Modern liberals do this. They create conflict by herding people into groups, causing these groups to view each other in negative ways.

A modern liberal is the same as a liberal 230 years ago, only much smarter and dealing with a much different world.

That's not even close to accurate. In fact its LIE...

Nope. I'm a liberal so I would know.

You know nothing of classical liberalism. You are in fact a polar opposite of the concept.

Classical liberalism is modern conservative/libertarianism.

tell Dr Strangelove that....he thinks modern liberalism and classical liberalism are one on the same.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Which is all concisely put in the First Amendment. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"..
You people on the left have conveniently ignored the part after the comma....And you've twisted that to mean "freedom FROM religion.....
Two things. There is no such thing as "separation of church and state"....There is no right to freedom from being exposed to religion...
And finally, you may not with respect to government institutions and those funded by tax dollars may favor one religion over another. Nor is it legal to promote ANY religion.....

And yet we have laws limiting both freedoms. Please explain, if you can...

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Nope. I'm a liberal so I would know.

You know nothing of classical liberalism. You are in fact a polar opposite of the concept.

How would you know? Oh wait, you don't.

I know because unlike you I do research. You just spew denials.
Stop arguing. You are wrong.
Period....

Show us said research? Oh wait, you have none.

Please. You were told to stop arguing.
Now, is there anything else you'd like to torture?

We are waiting for you to show that I am not a liberal so, do so....

 

[thereisnospoon]

The Liberal iteration of totalitarian.

Along with these iterations: communist, socialist, fascist, Nazi and Progressive.

All share the same hatred of individualism......
....and, as we have seen....free speech.

Totalitarianism is the foundation upon which leftism rests. Without the totalitarian foundation, leftism cannot long stand.

I agree with you that leftism is ultimately an expression of hatred of life and all living things. The leftist usually doesn't seek to outright kill their victims, but simply to deny to people the ability to live.

Liberalism requires:.....1) a demon. IN order for liberalism to have a voice, it must first find or create a victim class. Then it must find or create a person or group on which to place blame for the alleged suffering of the victim class.
2) liberalism requires the formation of groups or classes.
3) liberalism requires a crisis/cause, real or imagined in order to give the groups something on which to focus. The intent is to offer benefits to certain groups while denying same to others.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Which is all concisely put in the First Amendment. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"..
You people on the left have conveniently ignored the part after the comma....And you've twisted that to mean "freedom FROM religion.....
Two things. There is no such thing as "separation of church and state"....There is no right to freedom from being exposed to religion...
And finally, you may not with respect to government institutions and those funded by tax dollars may favor one religion over another. Nor is it legal to promote ANY religion.....

And yet we have laws limiting both freedoms. Please explain, if you can...

Why should I explain anything. You stated there are laws regarding this. Post them

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Which is all concisely put in the First Amendment. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"..
You people on the left have conveniently ignored the part after the comma....And you've twisted that to mean "freedom FROM religion.....
Two things. There is no such thing as "separation of church and state"....There is no right to freedom from being exposed to religion...
And finally, you may not with respect to government institutions and those funded by tax dollars may favor one religion over another. Nor is it legal to promote ANY religion.....

And yet we have laws limiting both freedoms. Please explain, if you can...

Why should I explain anything. You stated there are laws regarding this. Post them

United States free speech exceptions - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia