Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
And you think the FC is against free speech. Brainwashed functional idiot.There is no such thing as a liberal who opposed free speech. We invented it, and continue to defend it.When you can't win on facts, when history doesn't support you ideology / narrative, when your 'leaders' are constantly being exposed as liars, enemies of the Constitution/Rule of Law, and you have to ram your agendas through any way you can against the majority will of the people (like by telling the people who elected you they have no right to know what is in the secret edicts you are imposing on them), freedom of speech, transparency, and honesty is not your friend.
As seen throughout history, Liberals who oppose free speech have some infamous 'bedfellows'... China, Russia, Iran, Nazi Germany.... it's a sign of those who wish to CONTROL the people, not Represent them.
Thats funny, not according to your fellow liberal FrancoHFW on here, I don't know how many times he posted that he wished the fairness doctrine was back.
FC. Hater dupes HAVE to stay on Fox/Rush/Savage etc etc etc to get their idiocy/hate fix. You get more fact on CBS etc PBS BBC newspapers in 5 minutes than a year of RW BS.And you think the FC is against free speech. Brainwashed functional idiot.There is no such thing as a liberal who opposed free speech. We invented it, and continue to defend it.When you can't win on facts, when history doesn't support you ideology / narrative, when your 'leaders' are constantly being exposed as liars, enemies of the Constitution/Rule of Law, and you have to ram your agendas through any way you can against the majority will of the people (like by telling the people who elected you they have no right to know what is in the secret edicts you are imposing on them), freedom of speech, transparency, and honesty is not your friend.
As seen throughout history, Liberals who oppose free speech have some infamous 'bedfellows'... China, Russia, Iran, Nazi Germany.... it's a sign of those who wish to CONTROL the people, not Represent them.
Thats funny, not according to your fellow liberal FrancoHFW on here, I don't know how many times he posted that he wished the fairness doctrine was back.
??????
Are you trying to say the FCC?
Or was that a typi and you we're trying to say FD~ fairness doctrine?
If it is the latter of course it is, we all know how long Air America lasted and what the ratings are....
Most liberals are not into news and politics on the radio, they are on the FM dial listening to Ernie and Burt in the morning...or listening to music. Those are the facts and you are well aware of it.
Total BS propaganda you love, with no debate EVER- for ignorant dupes only. A disgrace. I remember when 25% of the country weren't loudmouth hateful morons.I support it as well, because for being granted access to the public airways we are allowed to set some rules. True free speech, like freedom of the press belonging to those who own one, is when you are allowed to stand in a public space and say just about any damn fool thing you wish to, even if it gets you punched in the nose or arrested for inciting a riot...There is no such thing as a liberal who opposed free speech. We invented it, and continue to defend it.When you can't win on facts, when history doesn't support you ideology / narrative, when your 'leaders' are constantly being exposed as liars, enemies of the Constitution/Rule of Law, and you have to ram your agendas through any way you can against the majority will of the people (like by telling the people who elected you they have no right to know what is in the secret edicts you are imposing on them), freedom of speech, transparency, and honesty is not your friend.
As seen throughout history, Liberals who oppose free speech have some infamous 'bedfellows'... China, Russia, Iran, Nazi Germany.... it's a sign of those who wish to CONTROL the people, not Represent them.
Thats funny, not according to your fellow liberal FrancoHFW on here, I don't know how many times he posted that he wished the fairness doctrine was back.
Yea I know you want to get rid of all conservative talk radio and go back to the only thing on the dial AM dial. Was news and boring ass 40s music
I just realized you really are anti 1st amendment like most all liberals, the only thing you want spoken is what you agree in.
I AM curious why is that?
FC. Hater dupes HAVE to stay on Fox/Rush/Savage etc etc etc to get their idiocy/hate fix. You get more fact on CBS etc PBS BBC newspapers in 5 minutes than a year of RW BS.And you think the FC is against free speech. Brainwashed functional idiot.There is no such thing as a liberal who opposed free speech. We invented it, and continue to defend it.When you can't win on facts, when history doesn't support you ideology / narrative, when your 'leaders' are constantly being exposed as liars, enemies of the Constitution/Rule of Law, and you have to ram your agendas through any way you can against the majority will of the people (like by telling the people who elected you they have no right to know what is in the secret edicts you are imposing on them), freedom of speech, transparency, and honesty is not your friend.
As seen throughout history, Liberals who oppose free speech have some infamous 'bedfellows'... China, Russia, Iran, Nazi Germany.... it's a sign of those who wish to CONTROL the people, not Represent them.
Thats funny, not according to your fellow liberal FrancoHFW on here, I don't know how many times he posted that he wished the fairness doctrine was back.
??????
Are you trying to say the FCC?
Or was that a typi and you we're trying to say FD~ fairness doctrine?
If it is the latter of course it is, we all know how long Air America lasted and what the ratings are....
Most liberals are not into news and politics on the radio, they are on the FM dial listening to Ernie and Burt in the morning...or listening to music. Those are the facts and you are well aware of it.
Your heroes are bought off liars. I know because I try all media all the time. And Fox Rush etc etc are a disgrace.Total BS propaganda you love, with no debate EVER- for ignorant dupes only. A disgrace. I remember when 25% of the country weren't loudmouth hateful morons.I support it as well, because for being granted access to the public airways we are allowed to set some rules. True free speech, like freedom of the press belonging to those who own one, is when you are allowed to stand in a public space and say just about any damn fool thing you wish to, even if it gets you punched in the nose or arrested for inciting a riot...There is no such thing as a liberal who opposed free speech. We invented it, and continue to defend it.
Thats funny, not according to your fellow liberal FrancoHFW on here, I don't know how many times he posted that he wished the fairness doctrine was back.
Yea I know you want to get rid of all conservative talk radio and go back to the only thing on the dial AM dial. Was news and boring ass 40s music
I just realized you really are anti 1st amendment like most all liberals, the only thing you want spoken is what you agree in.
I AM curious why is that?
Unlike you I have an open mind and love the opposing view, I think 100 people and myself were the only ones listening to Air America regularly.
Just a question Franco? Are you missing arms and can't change the channel?
Also what right do you have to limit the content of someone else speach? You are as bad as the Southern bible thumpers book burnings of the 50's.
Two peas in a pod of the opposite political spectrum...
You all are nuts.
I find it funny to see this thread just above one telling people to boycott Tarentino movies because he said something the OP finds offensive.
And not a single one of them value personal or religious freedom. That's reason enough for any sane individual to shun them.Liberals today are actually no different from what would, correctly, be known a fascists.
i prefer to call them commies!!
Fair enough.
Every one of these is based on the same view, and variations of the same methodology:
Communism, socialism, Liberalism, Progressivism, Nazism and fascism.
Depending on the strength the have at the moment, they seamlessly morph from one to the other.
FD. of course. CBS IS cowardly corporate, true. Present both side arguments with a straight face, even the RW's.FC. Hater dupes HAVE to stay on Fox/Rush/Savage etc etc etc to get their idiocy/hate fix. You get more fact on CBS etc PBS BBC newspapers in 5 minutes than a year of RW BS.And you think the FC is against free speech. Brainwashed functional idiot.There is no such thing as a liberal who opposed free speech. We invented it, and continue to defend it.
Thats funny, not according to your fellow liberal FrancoHFW on here, I don't know how many times he posted that he wished the fairness doctrine was back.
??????
Are you trying to say the FCC?
Or was that a typi and you we're trying to say FD~ fairness doctrine?
If it is the latter of course it is, we all know how long Air America lasted and what the ratings are....
Most liberals are not into news and politics on the radio, they are on the FM dial listening to Ernie and Burt in the morning...or listening to music. Those are the facts and you are well aware of it.
CBS?
Are you serious?
PBS and BBC are ok...
Again what the hell is FC?
Your heroes are bought off liars. I know because I try all media all the time. And Fox Rush etc etc are a disgrace.Total BS propaganda you love, with no debate EVER- for ignorant dupes only. A disgrace. I remember when 25% of the country weren't loudmouth hateful morons.I support it as well, because for being granted access to the public airways we are allowed to set some rules. True free speech, like freedom of the press belonging to those who own one, is when you are allowed to stand in a public space and say just about any damn fool thing you wish to, even if it gets you punched in the nose or arrested for inciting a riot...Thats funny, not according to your fellow liberal FrancoHFW on here, I don't know how many times he posted that he wished the fairness doctrine was back.
Yea I know you want to get rid of all conservative talk radio and go back to the only thing on the dial AM dial. Was news and boring ass 40s music
I just realized you really are anti 1st amendment like most all liberals, the only thing you want spoken is what you agree in.
I AM curious why is that?
Unlike you I have an open mind and love the opposing view, I think 100 people and myself were the only ones listening to Air America regularly.
Just a question Franco? Are you missing arms and can't change the channel?
Also what right do you have to limit the content of someone else speach? You are as bad as the Southern bible thumpers book burnings of the 50's.
Two peas in a pod of the opposite political spectrum...
You all are nuts.
Can you name a liberal college that in its student handbook actually warns students against exercising their free speech rights?
Oh gee you can't?
Hmmm... I can name a famous CONSERVATIVE school that does. Bob Jones University.
"We desire to treat students fairly and to serve their needs effectively. We are open to constructive input regarding how we may improve our service to students, campus life and the testimony of BJU. Mass and social media are powerful tools to communicate truth. In the spirit of honor and wisdom,
however,
students should not use media to disparage BJU
but should instead pursue truth in love by following this grievance process."
So who hates free speech again? lol
http://www.bju.edu/life-faith/student-handbook.pdf
How do you not know the political spectrum? That is Intro to Political Theory. Pretty basic stuff. Your subjective bullet points don't change that.. Try to get your bigoted vocabulary correct.
Fascists, Communists, Liberals, Progressives, Nazis, and socialist are all Left-Wing.
/facepalm
Well....now for the truth.....you'd best take notes:
Here is a little quiz that will show just how wrong you are:
Let's begin with definitions.
Nazism, communism, socialism..Liberalism, Progressivism,.and fascism....
1. Which stem from the works of Karl Marx?
2. Which is a form of command and control big government?
3. Which has no problem with genocide, actual or figurative, as an accepted procedure on its political enemies?
4. Which is based on the collective over the individual?
5. Which oppresses and/or slaughters its own citizens as pro forma (including depriving them of a living)....?
6. Which represents totalitarian governance?
7. Which believes that mandating/dictating every aspect of their citizen's lives is their prerogative?
8. Which aims for an all-encompassing state that centralizes power to perfect human nature by controlling every aspect of life
9. Which restricts free speech and thought?
10. Which can be summed up in Hegel's “The state says … you must obey …. The state has rights against the individual; its members have obligations, among them that of obeying without protest”
And, of course, they all are do...they are all consubstantial.
Nazism
Communism
Socialism
Fascism
Progressivism
Liberalism
How about pointing out which of them are defenders of religious, political, and economic freedom, and recognize the individual as the most important element of society?
Right....none of 'em.
Only right wing philosophies...i.e., conservatism.
Now, take notes, you dunce, and I'll explain how and why you've been convinced to believe a myth.
1. At the start of the depression, Mussolini, Roosevelt, Hitler, and Stalin were powerful leaders who many looked to based on the belief that capitalism had failed the world.
'2. All four were megalomaniacs and none believed that that there could or should be any restrictions on their power.
a. Roosevelt's guru, Rex Tugwell (look him up) spoke of how he despised the Constitution:
It is a fact that none of the New Dealers were constitutionalists. Roosevelt's economist, Rexford Tugwell said: 'Any people who must be governed according to the written codes of an instrument which defines the spheres of individual and group, state and federal actions must expect to suffer from the constant maladjustment of progress. A life' which changes and a constitution for governance which does not must always raise questions which are difficult for solution."
Manly, "The Twenty Year Revolution," p.63
3. The Nazis claimed that they could have written FDR's book:
a. May 11, 1933, the Nazi newspaper Volkischer Beobachter, (People’s Observer): “Roosevelt’s Dictatorial Recovery Measures.”
b. And on January 17, 1934, “We, too, as German National Socialists are looking toward America…” and “Roosevelt’s adoption of National Socialist strains of thought in his economic and social policies” comparable to Hitler’s own dictatorial ‘Fuhrerprinzip.’
c. And “[Roosevelt], too demands that collective good be put before individual self-interest. Many passages in his book ‘Looking Forward’ could have been written by a National Socialist….one can assume that he feels considerable affinity with the National Socialist philosophy.”
d. The paper also refers to “…the fictional appearance of democracy.”
4. Early on, FDR made his choice....Stalin: he recognized the USSR during his first year in office....1933...well before Hitler attacked his brother dictator (1941)
5. But....when the horrors of the Holocaust became known....FDR and the other Progressives/Liberals jumped like rats leaving a sinking ship....they had to distance themselves from their partner Leftwingers....
a. "Before WW II, the same folks who championed Progressivism, viewed fascism as a noble economic agenda, and praised Mussolini. It was the horrors of the Holocaust that required both the rapid retreat from associations with the term fascism, and the rebranding by John Dewey of progressivism as liberalism.
W.E.B.DuBois suggested that National Socialism seemed an excellent model for economic organization.
http://www.ghi-dc.org/files/publications/bu_supp/supp5/supp5_099.pdf
6. Having control of the schools and the media allowed the Liberals/Progressives/Democrats to claim that the Nazis were the opposite side of the aisle....'Rightwingers'...and true fools accepted that, even though 'Nazi' was a contraction of 'National Socialist.'
7. BTW....FDR's BFF, Stalin, had taught Hitler how to build concentration camps, and fed him the resources for his Blitzkrieg....
Everything in this post is true and accurate: check it out, and see how you've been lied to.
Good luck proving me a socialist.This is why liberals, like myself, are big fans of the public library system."Overall, white homes had 2.5 times as many books as black homes.
See that...even you socialists have a few good points.....
...a few.
And tell us, in your own words, are any restrictions on the First Amendment valid, yes or no?
There is no such thing as a liberal who opposed free speech. We invented it, and continue to defend it.When you can't win on facts, when history doesn't support you ideology / narrative, when your 'leaders' are constantly being exposed as liars, enemies of the Constitution/Rule of Law, and you have to ram your agendas through any way you can against the majority will of the people (like by telling the people who elected you they have no right to know what is in the secret edicts you are imposing on them), freedom of speech, transparency, and honesty is not your friend.
As seen throughout history, Liberals who oppose free speech have some infamous 'bedfellows'... China, Russia, Iran, Nazi Germany.... it's a sign of those who wish to CONTROL the people, not Represent them.
How do you not know the political spectrum? That is Intro to Political Theory. Pretty basic stuff. Your subjective bullet points don't change that.. Try to get your bigoted vocabulary correct.
Fascists, Communists, Liberals, Progressives, Nazis, and socialist are all Left-Wing.
/facepalm
Well....now for the truth.....you'd best take notes:
Here is a little quiz that will show just how wrong you are:
Let's begin with definitions.
Nazism, communism, socialism..Liberalism, Progressivism,.and fascism....
1. Which stem from the works of Karl Marx?
2. Which is a form of command and control big government?
3. Which has no problem with genocide, actual or figurative, as an accepted procedure on its political enemies?
4. Which is based on the collective over the individual?
5. Which oppresses and/or slaughters its own citizens as pro forma (including depriving them of a living)....?
6. Which represents totalitarian governance?
7. Which believes that mandating/dictating every aspect of their citizen's lives is their prerogative?
8. Which aims for an all-encompassing state that centralizes power to perfect human nature by controlling every aspect of life
9. Which restricts free speech and thought?
10. Which can be summed up in Hegel's “The state says … you must obey …. The state has rights against the individual; its members have obligations, among them that of obeying without protest”
And, of course, they all are do...they are all consubstantial.
Nazism
Communism
Socialism
Fascism
Progressivism
Liberalism
How about pointing out which of them are defenders of religious, political, and economic freedom, and recognize the individual as the most important element of society?
Right....none of 'em.
Only right wing philosophies...i.e., conservatism.
Now, take notes, you dunce, and I'll explain how and why you've been convinced to believe a myth.
1. At the start of the depression, Mussolini, Roosevelt, Hitler, and Stalin were powerful leaders who many looked to based on the belief that capitalism had failed the world.
'2. All four were megalomaniacs and none believed that that there could or should be any restrictions on their power.
a. Roosevelt's guru, Rex Tugwell (look him up) spoke of how he despised the Constitution:
It is a fact that none of the New Dealers were constitutionalists. Roosevelt's economist, Rexford Tugwell said: 'Any people who must be governed according to the written codes of an instrument which defines the spheres of individual and group, state and federal actions must expect to suffer from the constant maladjustment of progress. A life' which changes and a constitution for governance which does not must always raise questions which are difficult for solution."
Manly, "The Twenty Year Revolution," p.63
3. The Nazis claimed that they could have written FDR's book:
a. May 11, 1933, the Nazi newspaper Volkischer Beobachter, (People’s Observer): “Roosevelt’s Dictatorial Recovery Measures.”
b. And on January 17, 1934, “We, too, as German National Socialists are looking toward America…” and “Roosevelt’s adoption of National Socialist strains of thought in his economic and social policies” comparable to Hitler’s own dictatorial ‘Fuhrerprinzip.’
c. And “[Roosevelt], too demands that collective good be put before individual self-interest. Many passages in his book ‘Looking Forward’ could have been written by a National Socialist….one can assume that he feels considerable affinity with the National Socialist philosophy.”
d. The paper also refers to “…the fictional appearance of democracy.”
4. Early on, FDR made his choice....Stalin: he recognized the USSR during his first year in office....1933...well before Hitler attacked his brother dictator (1941)
5. But....when the horrors of the Holocaust became known....FDR and the other Progressives/Liberals jumped like rats leaving a sinking ship....they had to distance themselves from their partner Leftwingers....
a. "Before WW II, the same folks who championed Progressivism, viewed fascism as a noble economic agenda, and praised Mussolini. It was the horrors of the Holocaust that required both the rapid retreat from associations with the term fascism, and the rebranding by John Dewey of progressivism as liberalism.
W.E.B.DuBois suggested that National Socialism seemed an excellent model for economic organization.
http://www.ghi-dc.org/files/publications/bu_supp/supp5/supp5_099.pdf
6. Having control of the schools and the media allowed the Liberals/Progressives/Democrats to claim that the Nazis were the opposite side of the aisle....'Rightwingers'...and true fools accepted that, even though 'Nazi' was a contraction of 'National Socialist.'
7. BTW....FDR's BFF, Stalin, had taught Hitler how to build concentration camps, and fed him the resources for his Blitzkrieg....
Everything in this post is true and accurate: check it out, and see how you've been lied to.
None of that has much to do with the political spectrum. It's an obscure quote filled rant about President Roosevelt. Reactionary vs revolutionary. Left vs right. The terms you incorporate into your writing on a daily basis. It's been around since the French Revolution, beginning as markers for the seating arrangement in the Estates General. While it has changed over the years and new models have appeared (Nolan Chart/Pournelle Chart/Political Compass), most everyone has agreed Communists and Nazis are opposites. It is pretty hard to imagine the National Socialist Movement or the American Nazi Party proclaiming, or being seen as, champions of the left. In fact, this is the first time I've ever seen that position defended. Although, I did come across an old essay from American Thinker that tried to make that connection. Even that author said political scientists were unlikely to agree with his/her assessment.
As an aside, allow me to suggest you may want to tweak your writing a bit. It can be hard to differentiate between original thoughts and your recitation of facts and quotes. Emulating your favorite authors can be a useful writing exercise until you find your own voice/style. Ann Coulter is a good writer and intelligent but her work is all the same and amounts to: "Conservatives good. Liberals bad." and "I am right about everything. All the time." That gets old quickly. I know because I have read several of her works. Both you and Ms. Coulter should ask yourselves whether you are trying to establish domination in some sort of competition or participating in an exchange of ideas. Resist the urge to call people names. If you can't, do it at the END of your argument, otherwise, that's all your audience is going to hear. Judging by the volume of your posts and research, I think you could be pretty effective if you made some changes.
I support it as well, because for being granted access to the public airways we are allowed to set some rules. True free speech, like freedom of the press belonging to those who own one, is when you are allowed to stand in a public space and say just about any damn fool thing you wish to, even if it gets you punched in the nose or arrested for inciting a riot...There is no such thing as a liberal who opposed free speech. We invented it, and continue to defend it.When you can't win on facts, when history doesn't support you ideology / narrative, when your 'leaders' are constantly being exposed as liars, enemies of the Constitution/Rule of Law, and you have to ram your agendas through any way you can against the majority will of the people (like by telling the people who elected you they have no right to know what is in the secret edicts you are imposing on them), freedom of speech, transparency, and honesty is not your friend.
As seen throughout history, Liberals who oppose free speech have some infamous 'bedfellows'... China, Russia, Iran, Nazi Germany.... it's a sign of those who wish to CONTROL the people, not Represent them.
Thats funny, not according to your fellow liberal FrancoHFW on here, I don't know how many times he posted that he wished the fairness doctrine was back.
I find it funny to see this thread just above one telling people to boycott Tarentino movies because he said something the OP finds offensive.
PC has been asked time and again to explain what are the reasonable restrictions that can be placed on the First Amendment, and she can never answer. That is why she fails, completely, to understand why public schools cannot be seen as endorsing religion.
So sorry....I'm not gonna allow you to try to change the subject.
Back to the point:
On the basis of what reference in the Constitution should a student-initiated prayer be deemed unlawful?
So....what to do, when a corrupt court deems a right granted by the Constitution, unlawful?
"A group of high school football players in Tennessee have decided that they will pray anyway–no matter what the Freedom From Religious Foundation wants." http://theundergroundsite.com/index...-football-team-is-going-to-pray-anyway-14139/
8. "...take the blinders off and recognize the enemy for what they are. If they want to suppress speech, it's because they also want to suppress everything else about you that they don't like.
There are many conservatives and liberty-lovers who simply need to stop thinking of left-wingers as deluded but well-meaning people. They are not. The Left does not mean well. The Left hates freedom. It's not just that they have a "different idea" about what freedom is, but hold to the same general set of values about liberty and freedom that we do.
.... the Left has a completely alien ideology that hates the very concept of individual liberty, and therefore hates you for believing in it. Understand this, and you will go a long way towards understanding what drives those on the Left, from the most highly-placed Inner Party member in the US government all the way down to the barely-literate mouth-breather trolling the comments section on a blog.
...resist any efforts at restricting our freedom of speech and thought –even if it means breaking so-called laws in the process. There can be no genuine law that violates the plainly worded text of our Bill of Rights ...regardless of what any court or politician says."
Why liberals hate freedom of speech
As I said, good luck proving what you can't.Good luck proving me a socialist.This is why liberals, like myself, are big fans of the public library system."Overall, white homes had 2.5 times as many books as black homes.
See that...even you socialists have a few good points.....
...a few.
And tell us, in your own words, are any restrictions on the First Amendment valid, yes or no?
"Good luck proving me a socialist."
Why...it's eminently simple.
John Dewey, recognizing the low esteem socialists had in the eyes of American citizens, and recognizing the approval given to classical liberal, known today as conservatives.....
.....he simply had the Socialist Party change it's name to 'Liberals'...what we call Liberals today.
That would be you.
Anyone who has studied history knows that.
The only liberal on this thread is probably me.There is no such thing as a liberal who opposed free speech. We invented it, and continue to defend it.When you can't win on facts, when history doesn't support you ideology / narrative, when your 'leaders' are constantly being exposed as liars, enemies of the Constitution/Rule of Law, and you have to ram your agendas through any way you can against the majority will of the people (like by telling the people who elected you they have no right to know what is in the secret edicts you are imposing on them), freedom of speech, transparency, and honesty is not your friend.
As seen throughout history, Liberals who oppose free speech have some infamous 'bedfellows'... China, Russia, Iran, Nazi Germany.... it's a sign of those who wish to CONTROL the people, not Represent them.
So....you haven't studied this thread?
Or are you simply lying? It is a 'Liberal' trait.
