When Does a Loved One Need Caregiving? Get Answers From AARP’s ‘Family Caregiving Online Series.’ Register Now

Reply
Treasured Social Butterfly

Re: Free Speech

117 Views
Message 51 of 270

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
Report Inappropriate Content
Valued Social Butterfly

Re: Free Speech

86 Views
Message 52 of 270

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?"?

Report Inappropriate Content
Valued Social Butterfly

Re: Free Speech

79 Views
Message 53 of 270

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.

Report Inappropriate Content
Valued Social Butterfly

Re: Free Speech

94 Views
Message 54 of 270

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"
Report Inappropriate Content
Treasured Social Butterfly

Re: Free Speech

94 Views
Message 55 of 270

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.
Report Inappropriate Content
Valued Social Butterfly

Re: Free Speech

83 Views
Message 56 of 270

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.

Report Inappropriate Content
Valued Social Butterfly

Re: Free Speech

85 Views
Message 57 of 270

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"
Report Inappropriate Content
Valued Social Butterfly

Re: Free Speech

86 Views
Message 58 of 270

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.


 

Report Inappropriate Content
Valued Social Butterfly

Re: Free Speech

94 Views
Message 59 of 270

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"
Report Inappropriate Content
Valued Social Butterfly

Re: Free Speech

97 Views
Message 60 of 270

ChasKy53 wrote:

rk9152 wrote:

ChasKy53 wrote:

 


NO, the guy that ran over those people and killed that woman didn't have a permit.

So, that is not an issue - just "bunk".

 

No bunk here, the KKK had a permit and those protesting the KKK had a permit also.

No one had a permit to attack anyone.


 


Nope, no one had a permit to attack anyone, as in your last sentence. So why, in your first sentence, did you call it "bunk" when I stated that same thing?  Focus rk, focus.

Bringing it up is bunk or, if you prefer, look over there, cats, strawman, or whatever is the "in" term of the day.


 

Report Inappropriate Content