The House Bill Would Mean a Tax Hike for Millions of Seniors. Learn More

Reply
Valued Social Butterfly
Posts: 20,638
Registered: ‎11-09-2011

Re: Free Speech

Message 21 of 241 (85 Views)

What does support of Nazi's KKK and the altRight "fighting words" have to do with free speech? What the RW lunitic fringe is doing is NOT protected under the Constitution for much the same reason you don't get to yell "FIRE" in a crowded theater.

Treasured Social Butterfly
Posts: 25,306
Registered: ‎07-11-2013

Re: Free Speech

Message 22 of 241 (74 Views)

rk9152 wrote:

ChasKy53 wrote:

rk9152 wrote:

chas - you really should try to get away from your obsession with the word "troll" - it is leading you down a rabbit hole. 

 

 


The "rabbit hole" is yours. Stop trolling and it will disappear.


When will you deal with your false claim, "You brought up "slave chasing", what does that have to do with free speech?"?


The "rabbit hole" is yours.  Stop trolling and it will disappear.

 

 

Have pity for Melania - she wakes up with a jerk every morning
Valued Social Butterfly
Posts: 31,631
Registered: ‎02-21-2014

Re: Free Speech

Message 23 of 241 (54 Views)

ChasKy53 wrote:

rk9152 wrote:

chas - you really should try to get away from your obsession with the word "troll" - it is leading you down a rabbit hole. 

 

 


The "rabbit hole" is yours. Stop trolling and it will disappear.


When will you deal with your false claim, "You brought up "slave chasing", what does that have to do with free speech?"?

Valued Social Butterfly
Posts: 31,631
Registered: ‎02-21-2014

Re: Free Speech

Message 24 of 241 (49 Views)

MIseker wrote:

rk9152 wrote:

MIseker wrote:

rk9152 wrote:

ChasKy53 wrote:

rk9152 wrote:


Klan hoods are illegal in much of the country - antifa masks should be treated the same.

 

"Whay" do I suppose people have such a reaction? - because victimology has become a major industry and often an excuse for bad behavior.

 

I am not aware of any "slave chasing" lately. So, let's stick to our contemporary context.


If you want Antifa masks made illegal talk to you state representatives or your federal ones.

 

'Whay"?  Should we all start pointing out your numerous misspellings Too?

 

"Stick to contemporary context"?  You instructing others how and what to post now?


MIseker's spokesperson - the masks and hoods are equal under the law. If you'd like to correct my spelling, please feel free. I am suggesting that "slave chasing" is not an issue of "free speech". 

 

Is there anything else you'd like to offer on the subject of "free speech".


so you want to  outlaw all ski masks? bandanas? Fear has got you. thats an alt right symptom too.


A good approach to posting - read, think, respond. That makes for intelligent offerings. For example - did I say anything about wanting to ban anything?

 

See what I mean about intelligent offerings and their opposite?

 

Sorry, just going by your words, which you are what? trying to prove wrong now?

Klan hoods are illegal in much of the country - antifa masks should be treated the same.<< you said that.

 

So, an antifa mask terrorizes people the same way a Klan hood does? are ya skeerd?



You are not using my words - I never said anything about ski masks or bandannas - those are not my decision. The wording varies from place to place but they do not specify one type of mask over the other. Nor do they specify anything about being skeerd.

Valued Social Butterfly
Posts: 21,645
Registered: ‎11-07-2009

Re: Free Speech

Message 25 of 241 (64 Views)

rk9152 wrote:

chas - you really should try to get away from your obsession with the word "troll" - it is leading you down a rabbit hole. 

 

 


The "rabbit hole" is yours. Stop trolling and it will disappear.


"The only thing man learns from history is man learns nothing from history"
Treasured Social Butterfly
Posts: 8,174
Registered: ‎11-18-2009

Re: Free Speech

Message 26 of 241 (64 Views)

rk9152 wrote:

MIseker wrote:

rk9152 wrote:

ChasKy53 wrote:

rk9152 wrote:


Klan hoods are illegal in much of the country - antifa masks should be treated the same.

 

"Whay" do I suppose people have such a reaction? - because victimology has become a major industry and often an excuse for bad behavior.

 

I am not aware of any "slave chasing" lately. So, let's stick to our contemporary context.


If you want Antifa masks made illegal talk to you state representatives or your federal ones.

 

'Whay"?  Should we all start pointing out your numerous misspellings Too?

 

"Stick to contemporary context"?  You instructing others how and what to post now?


MIseker's spokesperson - the masks and hoods are equal under the law. If you'd like to correct my spelling, please feel free. I am suggesting that "slave chasing" is not an issue of "free speech". 

 

Is there anything else you'd like to offer on the subject of "free speech".


so you want to  outlaw all ski masks? bandanas? Fear has got you. thats an alt right symptom too.


A good approach to posting - read, think, respond. That makes for intelligent offerings. For example - did I say anything about wanting to ban anything?

 

See what I mean about intelligent offerings and their opposite?

 

Sorry, just going by your words, which you are what? trying to prove wrong now?

Klan hoods are illegal in much of the country - antifa masks should be treated the same.<< you said that.

 

So, an antifa mask terrorizes people the same way a Klan hood does? are ya skeerd?


So it begins.
Valued Social Butterfly
Posts: 31,631
Registered: ‎02-21-2014

Re: Free Speech

Message 27 of 241 (53 Views)

chas - you really should try to get away from your obsession with the word "troll" - it is leading you down a rabbit hole. 

 

For example, when you made up, "You brought up "slave chasing", what does that have to do with free speech?"  - you were in such a hurry to do another "troll" post that you didn't bother to check who actually posted it.

Valued Social Butterfly
Posts: 21,645
Registered: ‎11-07-2009

Re: Free Speech

Message 28 of 241 (55 Views)

rk9152 wrote:

ChasKy53 wrote:

rk9152 wrote:

ChasKy53 wrote:

rk9152 wrote:

 


Please try to follow the conversation. Chas was claiming that I was trying to equate running someone down with a car with free speech.

 

That is not "free speech", shooting is not "free speech", attacking a person is not "free speech".


Please try to "follow the conversation" and quote where I claimed that you equated "running someone down with a car with free speech". Another trollish false accusation.

The "trollishness" is bringing up the car in the first place.

 

Nope, running over people is not "free speech", shooting is not "free speech", attacking a person is not "free speech", yet the KKK has repeatedly done those things, many times at their supposed "free speech" gatherings.

If it happens, it is against the law and has nothing to do with free speech. So, again bringing it up is "trollishness".

Of course people will protest their presence, at least rational people will, and some will refuse to allow them to gather or speak on their property, both of which are within their Constitutional rights. You do support them practicing their Constitutional rights, don' you?

Private property is private. Public property requires permitting.


 


No rk, the "trollishness" is you not providing a quote of me saying something you erroneously claimed that I did.

 

YOU are the one that brought up   "running over people is not "free speech", shooting is not "free speech", attacking a person is not "free speech" (I simply quoted you),   so since you say that "bringing it up is trollish", you are correct, it certainly is. Thank you for admitting that you posted a trollish statement.

Yes I did. After you interjected running over people, shooting, and attacking into a discussion about free speech, I did indeed point out that those are not free speech.

And the childish "thank you" is ..... well, childish.

 

People protested the KKK having a gathering spreading hate filled white supremacist rhetoric. The protesters had a permit. Others refused to allow the KKK or white supremacists to speak on their property. Both those protesting the KKK and those refusing to allow the KKK to speak on their property were exercising their Constitutional rights. Do you support them exercising their Constitutional rights or not?

Again - I support people with permits doing whatever the permit allows. Private property is just that - private. I have said this repeatedly, what is your question.


 


When you choose to stop trolling and actually have honest adult discussion, I am waiting. Until then ............ enjoy your trolling.

 


"The only thing man learns from history is man learns nothing from history"
Valued Social Butterfly
Posts: 31,631
Registered: ‎02-21-2014

Re: Free Speech

Message 29 of 241 (58 Views)

ChasKy53 wrote:

rk9152 wrote:

ChasKy53 wrote:

rk9152 wrote:

 


Please try to follow the conversation. Chas was claiming that I was trying to equate running someone down with a car with free speech.

 

That is not "free speech", shooting is not "free speech", attacking a person is not "free speech".


Please try to "follow the conversation" and quote where I claimed that you equated "running someone down with a car with free speech". Another trollish false accusation.

The "trollishness" is bringing up the car in the first place.

 

Nope, running over people is not "free speech", shooting is not "free speech", attacking a person is not "free speech", yet the KKK has repeatedly done those things, many times at their supposed "free speech" gatherings.

If it happens, it is against the law and has nothing to do with free speech. So, again bringing it up is "trollishness".

Of course people will protest their presence, at least rational people will, and some will refuse to allow them to gather or speak on their property, both of which are within their Constitutional rights. You do support them practicing their Constitutional rights, don' you?

Private property is private. Public property requires permitting.


 


No rk, the "trollishness" is you not providing a quote of me saying something you erroneously claimed that I did.

 

YOU are the one that brought up   "running over people is not "free speech", shooting is not "free speech", attacking a person is not "free speech" (I simply quoted you),   so since you say that "bringing it up is trollish", you are correct, it certainly is. Thank you for admitting that you posted a trollish statement.

Yes I did. After you interjected running over people, shooting, and attacking into a discussion about free speech, I did indeed point out that those are not free speech.

And the childish "thank you" is ..... well, childish.

 

People protested the KKK having a gathering spreading hate filled white supremacist rhetoric. The protesters had a permit. Others refused to allow the KKK or white supremacists to speak on their property. Both those protesting the KKK and those refusing to allow the KKK to speak on their property were exercising their Constitutional rights. Do you support them exercising their Constitutional rights or not?

Again - I support people with permits doing whatever the permit allows. Private property is just that - private. I have said this repeatedly, what is your question.


 

Valued Social Butterfly
Posts: 21,645
Registered: ‎11-07-2009

Re: Free Speech

Message 30 of 241 (66 Views)

rk9152 wrote:

ChasKy53 wrote:

rk9152 wrote:

 


Please try to follow the conversation. Chas was claiming that I was trying to equate running someone down with a car with free speech.

 

That is not "free speech", shooting is not "free speech", attacking a person is not "free speech".


Please try to "follow the conversation" and quote where I claimed that you equated "running someone down with a car with free speech". Another trollish false accusation.

The "trollishness" is bringing up the car in the first place.

 

Nope, running over people is not "free speech", shooting is not "free speech", attacking a person is not "free speech", yet the KKK has repeatedly done those things, many times at their supposed "free speech" gatherings.

If it happens, it is against the law and has nothing to do with free speech. So, again bringing it up is "trollishness".

Of course people will protest their presence, at least rational people will, and some will refuse to allow them to gather or speak on their property, both of which are within their Constitutional rights. You do support them practicing their Constitutional rights, don' you?

Private property is private. Public property requires permitting.


 


No rk, the "trollishness" is you not providing a quote of me saying something you erroneously claimed that I did.

 

YOU are the one that brought up   "running over people is not "free speech", shooting is not "free speech", attacking a person is not "free speech" (I simply quoted you),   so since you say that "bringing it up is trollish", you are correct, it certainly is. Thank you for admitting that you posted a trollish statement.

 

People protested the KKK having a gathering spreading hate filled white supremacist rhetoric. The protesters had a permit. Others refused to allow the KKK or white supremacists to speak on their property. Both those protesting the KKK and those refusing to allow the KKK to speak on their property were exercising their Constitutional rights. Do you support them exercising their Constitutional rights or not?


"The only thing man learns from history is man learns nothing from history"