Tell Congress to Oppose Any Tax Bill That Would Increase Taxes for Seniors! Take Action Now

Reply
Valued Social Butterfly
Posts: 31,878
Registered: ‎02-21-2014

Re: Free Speech

Message 61 of 269 (78 Views)

Olderscout66 wrote:

The neoRepublicans want to pretend their support of Nazis, KKK and the altRight is NOT hate-based racism so they can ensure those groups will continue to attack Civil Rights, Voting Rights and Womens Rights with vile speech and murder AS IF such action is somehow in defense of the 1st Amendment. To remain consistant with such morality-free dogma, they also support pedophiles and other sexual predators to be their elected representatives. 


When an assumption is based of a false premise it becomes a false assumption.

 

Example - the assumption that Republicans ("neo" or otherwise) support Nazis, Kluxers etc.

Valued Social Butterfly
Posts: 21,780
Registered: ‎11-07-2009

Re: Free Speech

Message 62 of 269 (82 Views)

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.


"The only thing man learns from history is man learns nothing from history"
Valued Social Butterfly
Posts: 21,780
Registered: ‎11-07-2009

Re: Free Speech

Message 63 of 269 (73 Views)

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.

 

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. 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?


"The only thing man learns from history is man learns nothing from history"
Valued Social Butterfly
Posts: 31,878
Registered: ‎02-21-2014

Re: Free Speech

Message 64 of 269 (70 Views)

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.

Valued Social Butterfly
Posts: 31,878
Registered: ‎02-21-2014

Re: Free Speech

Message 65 of 269 (72 Views)

ChasKy53 wrote:

rk9152 wrote:

 


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?


You brought up "slave chasing", what does that have to do with free speech? Was that a result of "thinking"?  Yes we see what you mean about "intelligent offerings and their opposite", you give us examples of "their opposite" all of the time.


No I didn't. Once again, read, think, respond.

Valued Social Butterfly
Posts: 20,708
Registered: ‎11-09-2011

Re: Free Speech

Message 66 of 269 (72 Views)

The neoRepublicans want to pretend their support of Nazis, KKK and the altRight is NOT hate-based racism so they can ensure those groups will continue to attack Civil Rights, Voting Rights and Womens Rights with vile speech and murder AS IF such action is somehow in defense of the 1st Amendment. To remain consistant with such morality-free dogma, they also support pedophiles and other sexual predators to be their elected representatives. 

Valued Social Butterfly
Posts: 31,878
Registered: ‎02-21-2014

Re: Free Speech

Message 67 of 269 (71 Views)

Olderscout66 wrote:

The Republican Party, and most especially the Fundamentalists, hate of Americans is overwhelming. They support sexual predators SO LONG AS the predator promises to not remark on the inconsistancies in their pseudo-religious dogma. How can they support and elect totally amoral Nazi wussygrabbers and think they're following Jesus? What agenda do they expect fans of Nazis and KKK will do when in office?

Denial, Thy Name is Fundie.


As I recall, Karl Marx also was against religion, it interfered with his vision of the "workers' paradise".

 

But the topic is "free speech" - are those with deep religious beliefs opposed to free speech in your opinion?

Valued Social Butterfly
Posts: 21,780
Registered: ‎11-07-2009

Re: Free Speech

Message 68 of 269 (67 Views)

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.


"The only thing man learns from history is man learns nothing from history"
Valued Social Butterfly
Posts: 21,780
Registered: ‎11-07-2009

Re: Free Speech

Message 69 of 269 (59 Views)

rk9152 wrote:

 


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?


You brought up "slave chasing", what does that have to do with free speech? Was that a result of "thinking"?  Yes we see what you mean about "intelligent offerings and their opposite", you give us examples of "their opposite" all of the time.


"The only thing man learns from history is man learns nothing from history"
Valued Social Butterfly
Posts: 31,878
Registered: ‎02-21-2014

Re: Free Speech

Message 70 of 269 (62 Views)

ChasKy53 wrote:

rk9152 wrote:

ChasKy53 wrote:

rk9152 wrote:

ChasKy53 wrote:

rk9152 wrote:

ChasKy53 wrote:

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.


So when a white supremacist hate group like the KKK meets (as in C'ville), how come it doesn't "sound like balance" to you for others to protest the KKK and their racist hate rhetoric?


So I do not consider the actions of masked, armed mobs in the street with the sole purpose of denying another's free speech to be free speech.

 

On the other hand I support 100% antifa's right to get a permit and have a rally, town hall, talk-in, whatever.


None of your bunk on this matters in the least. What matters is what the Constitution says. When the KKK "mobs in the street" met in C'ville, those protesting the KKK's white supremacist hate speech were within their Constitutional rights to do so. The KKK "mobs in the street" drove a car into the crowd, killing one woman and injuring dozens.


If a group or individual has a permit, invitation whatever to exercise their free speech (regardless of the content) and another group objects to it, I am all for settling the dispute in court. However, I do not support armed, masked mobs placing themselves in the place of the courts. Is that the "bunk that doesn't matter"?

 

And speaking of bunk - where have you seen anyone defend driving a car into people as free speech? Might that be your "bunk that doesn't matter"?


Those protesting the KKK in C'ville had a permit, do you forget that? It seems that your armed KKK mobs  are the ones who placed themselves in place of the court by running their vehicle into those protesting them, killing one woman and injuring dozens.

 

I never said that I have "seen anyone defend driving a car into people as free speech", so that comment of yours is even more 'bunk'.


If anyone marches or demonstrates with a permit, they have my approval. However, I do not believe that physical attacks are permitted and masks are illegal in VA so I support neither.

 

Since there was no permit involved in the car attack, bringing it up is more of your "bunk".


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.