Know Someone Over 50 Making a Difference? Nominate Them for the AARP Purpose Prize

Reply
Valued Social Butterfly

Re: Free Speech

92 Views
Message 11 of 270

rk9152 wrote:

ChasKy53 wrote:

 


If they are "unwanted", they can speak outside in an empty park on public land. (hopefully in the middle of the winter)  They do have that Constitutional right.


Or they can be treated as citizens with rights, offered a room, auditorium, whatever and say whatever they are allowed to based on the Constitution and court rulings. Then people can come or not come, again, exercising their rights.


No one or no private institution has to let anyone speak on their property in order to treat that person "as citizens with rights". They don't have to "offer them a room, auditorium or whatever" to "treat them as citizens with rights".  Many of your suggestions and claims are so entirely bogus that they make me LOL !!!

 

Your KKK and White Supremacist friends can get a permit when necessary and speak on any public land that they desire to and then "people can come or not come, exercising their rights".


"The only thing man learns from history is man learns nothing from history"
Report Inappropriate Content
Valued Social Butterfly

Re: Free Speech

72 Views
Message 12 of 270

MIseker wrote:

rk9152 wrote:

ChasKy53 wrote:

rk9152 wrote:

MIseker wrote:

rk9152 wrote:

Richva wrote:

The thing about the right to free speach is that it is not the right to exercise it anywhere you wish.  If the students at a university do not wish to hear a certain speaker, that speaker has every right to walk to the nearest public space and continue the dialog.  

 

When Milo Yiannopoulos came out for man/boy sex, the conservatives un-invited him from THEIR convention but scream if he does not get invited to Berkely. Trump states flag burners should lose their citizenship. He claimed a speaker had no right to say Trump had not read the Constitution.  He has blocked anyone from his Twitter feed who disagree with him. He has repeatedly called for shutting down parts of the internet. He wants to stiffen libel laws to protect his thin hide. 

 

So, as usual, the conservatives want it both ways. No restrictions on when and where for the people with whom they agree but screams of "We need to be protected from this" for anyone who does not. 

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/a-brief-history-of-donald-trumps-mixed-messages-on-freedom-o...


If the students do not want to hear his words - no one is requiring their attendance.

 

Yes, we Conservatives do want it both ways - the right for anyone to say anything they want and the right for anyone to not attend such speeches that they do not want to hear.


The 2 biggest colleges in MI have always been "different", especially the one in Ann Arbor. Hillsdale is not too far from there..and has a far right reputation that would have welcomed the speaker with open arms. maybe an hour from U of M. Yet, he chose U of M when there is a possibility ANYTHING might happen. Why do you suppose all these right wing speakers chose to speak where they arent wanted? I have no pity when they get what they ask for.


If they were "unwanted" then they would be speaking to an empty room. What is wrong with that?


If they are "unwanted", they can speak outside in an empty park on public land. (hopefully in the middle of the winter)  They do have that Constitutional right.


Or they can be treated as citizens with rights, offered a room, auditorium, whatever and say whatever they are allowed to based on the Constitution and court rulings. Then people can come or not come, again, exercising their rights.


So protesters dont have the right to free speech? besides, its a Democracy, and there were MORE protesters than supporters..essentially voting the speaker out.


So who said that?

 

Besides, if your theory is true, minorities have no rights.

Report Inappropriate Content
Treasured Social Butterfly

Re: Free Speech

70 Views
Message 13 of 270

rk9152 wrote:

When some exercise their free speech to insult our nation and dead soldiers and others exercise their free speech as to those actions it sounds like a balance, not a one sided issue as portrayed.


now thats odd. ol Dad said he fought for these peoples right to protest the flag , the govt, war etc.. was he wrong? Was he wrong to oppose Viet Nam toward the end? 

So it begins.
Report Inappropriate Content
Treasured Social Butterfly

Re: Free Speech

66 Views
Message 14 of 270

rk9152 wrote:

ChasKy53 wrote:

rk9152 wrote:

MIseker wrote:

rk9152 wrote:

Richva wrote:

The thing about the right to free speach is that it is not the right to exercise it anywhere you wish.  If the students at a university do not wish to hear a certain speaker, that speaker has every right to walk to the nearest public space and continue the dialog.  

 

When Milo Yiannopoulos came out for man/boy sex, the conservatives un-invited him from THEIR convention but scream if he does not get invited to Berkely. Trump states flag burners should lose their citizenship. He claimed a speaker had no right to say Trump had not read the Constitution.  He has blocked anyone from his Twitter feed who disagree with him. He has repeatedly called for shutting down parts of the internet. He wants to stiffen libel laws to protect his thin hide. 

 

So, as usual, the conservatives want it both ways. No restrictions on when and where for the people with whom they agree but screams of "We need to be protected from this" for anyone who does not. 

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/a-brief-history-of-donald-trumps-mixed-messages-on-freedom-o...


If the students do not want to hear his words - no one is requiring their attendance.

 

Yes, we Conservatives do want it both ways - the right for anyone to say anything they want and the right for anyone to not attend such speeches that they do not want to hear.


The 2 biggest colleges in MI have always been "different", especially the one in Ann Arbor. Hillsdale is not too far from there..and has a far right reputation that would have welcomed the speaker with open arms. maybe an hour from U of M. Yet, he chose U of M when there is a possibility ANYTHING might happen. Why do you suppose all these right wing speakers chose to speak where they arent wanted? I have no pity when they get what they ask for.


If they were "unwanted" then they would be speaking to an empty room. What is wrong with that?


If they are "unwanted", they can speak outside in an empty park on public land. (hopefully in the middle of the winter)  They do have that Constitutional right.


Or they can be treated as citizens with rights, offered a room, auditorium, whatever and say whatever they are allowed to based on the Constitution and court rulings. Then people can come or not come, again, exercising their rights.

 

 

hey..get me a room near your house. I want to stand on the sidewalk and prctice my free speech.


 

So it begins.
Report Inappropriate Content
Valued Social Butterfly

Re: Free Speech

67 Views
Message 15 of 270

rk9152 wrote:

ChasKy53 wrote:

rk9152 wrote:

In this one there is a balance - regulations to insure the freedom of the free market is a proper role of government. However, considering investments or banking as part of "social justice" moves us in a different (Marxist) direction.

 

Roads, dams, power grid - no problem (not "planks").


 


Can you show documentation of some sort to support your claim that  "regulations to insure the freedom of the free market is a proper role of government"?  If you show documentation that proves that to be true - - - then what regulations?   Only the ones that you want?  Why would regulations for banks and investments not be included?   Many of your broad claims make little sense except in the Alt-Right world


Sorry, I thought it was understood, so I omitted "IMHO".

 

Since we are clarifying things - can you show documentation from the alt-right handbook relating to economic regulation?


So you can't show any 'real' basis for your statement that "regulations to insure the freedom of the free market is a proper role of government".   Thank you for the clarification.

 

As far as your "Alt-Right handbook" question ....... it's your world, you tell me.


"The only thing man learns from history is man learns nothing from history"
Report Inappropriate Content
Treasured Social Butterfly

Re: Free Speech

61 Views
Message 16 of 270

rk9152 wrote:

ChasKy53 wrote:

rk9152 wrote:

MIseker wrote:

rk9152 wrote:

Richva wrote:

The thing about the right to free speach is that it is not the right to exercise it anywhere you wish.  If the students at a university do not wish to hear a certain speaker, that speaker has every right to walk to the nearest public space and continue the dialog.  

 

When Milo Yiannopoulos came out for man/boy sex, the conservatives un-invited him from THEIR convention but scream if he does not get invited to Berkely. Trump states flag burners should lose their citizenship. He claimed a speaker had no right to say Trump had not read the Constitution.  He has blocked anyone from his Twitter feed who disagree with him. He has repeatedly called for shutting down parts of the internet. He wants to stiffen libel laws to protect his thin hide. 

 

So, as usual, the conservatives want it both ways. No restrictions on when and where for the people with whom they agree but screams of "We need to be protected from this" for anyone who does not. 

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/a-brief-history-of-donald-trumps-mixed-messages-on-freedom-o...


If the students do not want to hear his words - no one is requiring their attendance.

 

Yes, we Conservatives do want it both ways - the right for anyone to say anything they want and the right for anyone to not attend such speeches that they do not want to hear.


The 2 biggest colleges in MI have always been "different", especially the one in Ann Arbor. Hillsdale is not too far from there..and has a far right reputation that would have welcomed the speaker with open arms. maybe an hour from U of M. Yet, he chose U of M when there is a possibility ANYTHING might happen. Why do you suppose all these right wing speakers chose to speak where they arent wanted? I have no pity when they get what they ask for.


If they were "unwanted" then they would be speaking to an empty room. What is wrong with that?


If they are "unwanted", they can speak outside in an empty park on public land. (hopefully in the middle of the winter)  They do have that Constitutional right.


Or they can be treated as citizens with rights, offered a room, auditorium, whatever and say whatever they are allowed to based on the Constitution and court rulings. Then people can come or not come, again, exercising their rights.


So protesters dont have the right to free speech? besides, its a Democracy, and there were MORE protesters than supporters..essentially voting the speaker out.

So it begins.
Report Inappropriate Content
Valued Social Butterfly

Re: Free Speech

70 Views
Message 17 of 270

ChasKy53 wrote:

rk9152 wrote:

In this one there is a balance - regulations to insure the freedom of the free market is a proper role of government. However, considering investments or banking as part of "social justice" moves us in a different (Marxist) direction.

 

Roads, dams, power grid - no problem (not "planks").


 


Can you show documentation of some sort to support your claim that  "regulations to insure the freedom of the free market is a proper role of government"?  If you show documentation that proves that to be true - - - then what regulations?   Only the ones that you want?  Why would regulations for banks and investments not be included?   Many of your broad claims make little sense except in the Alt-Right world


Sorry, I thought it was understood, so I omitted "IMHO".

 

Since we are clarifying things - can you show documentation from the alt-right handbook relating to economic regulation?

Report Inappropriate Content
Valued Social Butterfly

Re: Free Speech

74 Views
Message 18 of 270

Olderscout66 wrote:

The Courts decided what the nazi's et al have to say is NOT "free speech", and they have no right to say it. Republicans want all such laws to be like the restraining orders their nazi supporters "walk right thru" to beat their wives.

 

Having the "wife" fight back is horrifying, as is the thought they might actually meet physical opposition for preaching their message of hate.

 

So they PRETEND it's a Constitutional Issue, and beg the police to protect THEM from the ones they attack and incite violence against.

 

And when that fails, they drive over them in their car and kill as many as possible with their guns.


If, in fact, the courts have said they could not express their views then they could not have gotten a permit. If they did not have a permit, it would have been the job of law enforcement to stop them, not protect them.

 

So, it would appear your entire theory is in error.

 

And then Republicans and "wife beating" - now you have really gone off the deep end. Maybe you better stick to blaming everything from hurricanes to herpes on the Reagan tax scam.

Report Inappropriate Content
Valued Social Butterfly

Re: Free Speech

85 Views
Message 19 of 270

rk9152 wrote:

 

 


"Try". Any thoughts on the topic - particularly the words of wisdom I have graciously offered?


I see no "wisdom", just sordid opinions, assumptions, and erroneous claims.


"The only thing man learns from history is man learns nothing from history"
Report Inappropriate Content
Valued Social Butterfly

Re: Free Speech

87 Views
Message 20 of 270

rk9152 wrote:

In this one there is a balance - regulations to insure the freedom of the free market is a proper role of government. However, considering investments or banking as part of "social justice" moves us in a different (Marxist) direction.

 

Roads, dams, power grid - no problem (not "planks").


 


Can you show documentation of some sort to support your claim that  "regulations to insure the freedom of the free market is a proper role of government"?  If you show documentation that proves that to be true - - - then what regulations?   Only the ones that you want?  Why would regulations for banks and investments not be included?   Many of your broad claims make little sense except in the Alt-Right world


"The only thing man learns from history is man learns nothing from history"
Report Inappropriate Content