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

Reply
Valued Social Butterfly

Re: Free Speech

76 Views
Message 71 of 270

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.


 

Report Inappropriate Content
Valued Social Butterfly

Re: Free Speech

73 Views
Message 72 of 270

patriciah559514 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.


and hoodies for non-white people? don't forget that one. maybe pockets for non-white people as well. 


Why does the left always have to make everything about race. We're talking about "free speech" - "free speech" for all PEOPLE.

Report Inappropriate Content
Valued Social Butterfly

Re: Free Speech

78 Views
Message 73 of 270

MIseker 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"?


here we go back to c'ville.. where its proven the only shots fired were from the alt right, the alt right attacked a black man..etc etc. A true confederate wanting to re litigate the lost cause.


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".

Report Inappropriate Content
Valued Social Butterfly

Re: Free Speech

73 Views
Message 74 of 270

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.

Report Inappropriate Content
Valued Social Butterfly

Re: Free Speech

72 Views
Message 75 of 270

MIseker wrote:

rk9152 wrote:

MIseker wrote:

rk9152 wrote:

Olderscout66 wrote:

SCOTUS long ago established that not all speech is protected. "Fighting words", words that can reasonably be expected to provoke a violent responce, have NO protction under the 1st Amendment or any other part of the Constitution. People who have made a career spewing "fighting words" in PRIVATE venues can and should be barred from doing the same thing in a public one, especially a public school.


That is true, the courts have made such rulings - and that is where such decisions blame. Not in the hands of the masked, armed street mobs or the "that hurts my feelings" mindset. If it hurts your feelings, don't listen.


sounds like you would have been a royalist during the Revolution and soon woud have had to move to Canada. WOuldnt have been able to stand that mob action. 


That is a strange thing to say. Do you really think that it was the royalists who stood for free speech and supported the judicial system?


Yes they did..theirs. the mob disagreed.


I'm not sure of your point. Are you so dissatisfied with our form of government that you are calling for an armed uprising to end it?

Report Inappropriate Content
Valued Social Butterfly

Re: Free Speech

70 Views
Message 76 of 270

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?

Report Inappropriate Content
Valued Social Butterfly

Re: Free Speech

70 Views
Message 77 of 270

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?

Report Inappropriate Content
Valued Social Butterfly

Re: Free Speech

89 Views
Message 78 of 270

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.

 

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


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

Re: Free Speech

101 Views
Message 79 of 270

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.


and hoodies for non-white people? don't forget that one. maybe pockets for non-white people as well. 

Report Inappropriate Content
Treasured Social Butterfly

Re: Free Speech

107 Views
Message 80 of 270

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"?


here we go back to c'ville.. where its proven the only shots fired were from the alt right, the alt right attacked a black man..etc etc. A true confederate wanting to re litigate the lost cause.

So it begins.
Report Inappropriate Content