Bill's Wife: The Tasmanian Candidate

[Dale Smith]

Did you see the dunce actually posting a link with words like" edges towards violence"

Yes operative word being VIOLENCE! Get it dumbass?

So long as you don't threaten violence you can say whtever your heart pleases about Muslims.

Now...watch how easily I eviscerate your post (better look that up).

The term you keep using, implying ignorance, seems to have become a boomerang...

These are the requirements, as set down by the Supreme Court:

intent, imminence, and likelihood

Have someone buy you a dictionary, you fool.



Then you may recognize that Obama's AG is blowing smoke...and you've bought it like it was on sale:
c. And from Obama's Justice Department: "Loretta Lynch Vows to Prosecute Anti-Muslim Speech" Loretta Lynch Vows to Prosecute Anti-Muslim Speech, Calls San Bernardino 'Wonderful Opportunity' - Breitbart

In America before the Fascists took over, and you accepted Fascism....one was perfectly free to offer an opinion about Muslims....
...any opinion.

...yea intent of VIOLENCE
...imminence of VIOLENCE
...likelyhood of VIOLENCE

What are you disputing dumbass?

Hate speech is protected, threatening violence is not, nothing Lynch said contradicts that. So what is your argument??

Are they not hinting that climate change deniers need to be silenced if not outright arrested????

 

[Moonglow]

In a moment I'll put forth the real world situation that will occur right in the United States if and when the Democrats/Liberals are victorious.

Go live in North Korea for a year and get back to us on the term, totalitarian party,...

You may attempt to change the subject in some absurd way...i.e., comparing the United States to North Korea...

...but, if you can't dispute any of these,....I've proven my case.


a. The first amendment clearly states "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech,..."
Branding some speech as 'hate speech,' and thereby granting government the right to abridge same, is as anti-American as one can get. Yet, Obama put on the Supreme Court a women who claimed just such a right for government.

b. Democrat/Liberal Icon Lyndon Johnson had just such an abridgment enforced against the religious community. Under LBJ, the law was passed that deprived pastors of their right of free speech....or lose their tax exempt status.
What possible compelling government interest could this represent????


c. And from Obama's Justice Department: "Loretta Lynch Vows to Prosecute Anti-Muslim Speech" Loretta Lynch Vows to Prosecute Anti-Muslim Speech, Calls San Bernardino 'Wonderful Opportunity' - Breitbart


d. "Frank Gaffney on Obama’s Attempt to Slip Irreversible Internet Surrender Under the Radar:
...the impending handover of Internet control to a foreign body
What they’re preparing to do is to cede, or surrender, the last vestige of American control, or even influence, over what is done with critical functions of the Internet. .... the freedom of the Internet – whether it’s the ability of people to communicate freely information on it– or countries, I should say, like Russia, and China, and Saudi Arabia, and Iran, and North Korea – don’t want us to have any say in this..."
Frank Gaffney on Obama's Attempt to Slip Irreversible Internet Surrender Under the Radar: 'We've Got Three Days to Fix This'


e. And here's a peek into the totalitarian-Hillary: Hillary Clinton's campaign has actually told the press what it cannot say in reporting about her: polarizing, calculating, disingenuous, insincere, ambitious, inevitable, entitled, over confident, Secretive, “will do anything to win,” “represents the past” and “out of touch."
Here Are The Words Hillary’s Supporters Won’t Let You Say



Thanks for your inadvertent support.




Better look up 'inadvertent.'

Inadvertent support is what you do for North Korea.. You wouldn't know true repression if you posted a thread about it trying to squash counterpoints with lame redundant retorts...

 

[mudwhistle]

In a moment I'll put forth the real world situation that will occur right in the United States if and when the Democrats/Liberals are victorious.

Go live in North Korea for a year and get back to us on the term, totalitarian party,...

And your point is what........

Moral relativism is a real loser in an honest debate.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Now....about Bill's wife as the Tasmanian candidate...

Sounds very high energy!

As I have revealed you to be a Fascist in good standing, I imagine you would be a good one to ask this of....


....I've posted this query before, and none of you Nazis has deigned to answer....

As you clearly don't mind embarrassing yourself, perhaps you'd care to respond:

Democrat/Liberal Icon Lyndon Johnson had just such an abridgment enforced against the religious community. Under LBJ, the law was passed that deprived pastors of their right of free speech....or lose their tax exempt status.


What possible compelling government interest could this represent????

 

[PoliticalChic]

In a moment I'll put forth the real world situation that will occur right in the United States if and when the Democrats/Liberals are victorious.

Go live in North Korea for a year and get back to us on the term, totalitarian party,...

You may attempt to change the subject in some absurd way...i.e., comparing the United States to North Korea...

...but, if you can't dispute any of these,....I've proven my case.


a. The first amendment clearly states "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech,..."
Branding some speech as 'hate speech,' and thereby granting government the right to abridge same, is as anti-American as one can get. Yet, Obama put on the Supreme Court a women who claimed just such a right for government.

b. Democrat/Liberal Icon Lyndon Johnson had just such an abridgment enforced against the religious community. Under LBJ, the law was passed that deprived pastors of their right of free speech....or lose their tax exempt status.
What possible compelling government interest could this represent????


c. And from Obama's Justice Department: "Loretta Lynch Vows to Prosecute Anti-Muslim Speech" Loretta Lynch Vows to Prosecute Anti-Muslim Speech, Calls San Bernardino 'Wonderful Opportunity' - Breitbart


d. "Frank Gaffney on Obama’s Attempt to Slip Irreversible Internet Surrender Under the Radar:
...the impending handover of Internet control to a foreign body
What they’re preparing to do is to cede, or surrender, the last vestige of American control, or even influence, over what is done with critical functions of the Internet. .... the freedom of the Internet – whether it’s the ability of people to communicate freely information on it– or countries, I should say, like Russia, and China, and Saudi Arabia, and Iran, and North Korea – don’t want us to have any say in this..."
Frank Gaffney on Obama's Attempt to Slip Irreversible Internet Surrender Under the Radar: 'We've Got Three Days to Fix This'


e. And here's a peek into the totalitarian-Hillary: Hillary Clinton's campaign has actually told the press what it cannot say in reporting about her: polarizing, calculating, disingenuous, insincere, ambitious, inevitable, entitled, over confident, Secretive, “will do anything to win,” “represents the past” and “out of touch."
Here Are The Words Hillary’s Supporters Won’t Let You Say



Thanks for your inadvertent support.




Better look up 'inadvertent.'

Inadvertent support is what you do for North Korea.. You wouldn't know true repression if you posted a thread about it trying to squash counterpoints with lame redundant retorts...

"Inadvertent support is what you do for North Korea.. "

Look how rapidly I've reduced you to this absurd lie!!!

Damn, I'm good!



Or....perhaps you'd like to try again: exactly how have is supported North Korea in any manner, shape or form?



But...I did teach you a new word today, huh?

 

[PoliticalChic]

In a moment I'll put forth the real world situation that will occur right in the United States if and when the Democrats/Liberals are victorious.

Go live in North Korea for a year and get back to us on the term, totalitarian party,...

You may attempt to change the subject

Dumbass YOU are the one changing the subject.

I'm talking DIRECTLY about what Lunch said and how what she is talking about is NOT "anti-muslim speech", but rather speech that threatens VIOLENCE against Muslims.

LOL

Did you even read the OP?

Reading and comprehension are clearly not the same in government school.

 

[PoliticalChic]

In a moment I'll put forth the real world situation that will occur right in the United States if and when the Democrats/Liberals are victorious.

Go live in North Korea for a year and get back to us on the term, totalitarian party,...

And your point is what........

Moral relativism is a real loser in an honest debate.

I saw it as his usual attempt to change the subject....in other words, the Liberal white flag.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Did you see the dunce actually posting a link with words like" edges towards violence"

Yes operative word being VIOLENCE! Get it dumbass?

So long as you don't threaten violence you can say whtever your heart pleases about Muslims.

Now...watch how easily I eviscerate your post (better look that up).

The term you keep using, implying ignorance, seems to have become a boomerang...

These are the requirements, as set down by the Supreme Court:

intent, imminence, and likelihood

Have someone buy you a dictionary, you fool.



Then you may recognize that Obama's AG is blowing smoke...and you've bought it like it was on sale:
c. And from Obama's Justice Department: "Loretta Lynch Vows to Prosecute Anti-Muslim Speech" Loretta Lynch Vows to Prosecute Anti-Muslim Speech, Calls San Bernardino 'Wonderful Opportunity' - Breitbart

In America before the Fascists took over, and you accepted Fascism....one was perfectly free to offer an opinion about Muslims....
...any opinion.

...yea intent of VIOLENCE
...imminence of VIOLENCE
...likelyhood of VIOLENCE

What are you disputing dumbass?

Hate speech is protected, threatening violence is not, nothing Lynch said contradicts that. So what is your argument??

Are they not hinting that climate change deniers need to be silenced if not outright arrested????

Gulags.

Or, FDR Concentration Camps.


Bend the knee and neck to government pronouncements.
Or else.

 

[AntonToo]

Are they not hinting that climate change deniers need to be silenced if not outright arrested????

No they are not, that's a straw-man.

Nor is it what is being discussed, threats of legal persecution ARE NOT threats of violence.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Are they not hinting that climate change deniers need to be silenced if not outright arrested????

No they are not, that's a straw-man.

Nor is it what is being discussed, threats of legal persecution ARE NOT threats of violence.

Knock, knock....


As I have revealed you to be a Fascist in good standing, I imagine you would be a good one to ask this of....


....I've posted this query before, and none of you Nazis has deigned to answer....

As you clearly don't mind embarrassing yourself, perhaps you'd care to respond:

Democrat/Liberal Icon Lyndon Johnson had just such an abridgment enforced against the religious community. Under LBJ, the law was passed that deprived pastors of their right of free speech....or lose their tax exempt status.


What possible compelling government interest could this represent????

 

[AntonToo]

In a moment I'll put forth the real world situation that will occur right in the United States if and when the Democrats/Liberals are victorious.

Go live in North Korea for a year and get back to us on the term, totalitarian party,...

And your point is what........

Moral relativism is a real loser in an honest debate.

Thats all you can find to comment on in this thread? Really? Anything a certain nutbag is saying not catching your eye at all?

 

[Wildman]

why are liberscum so fucking stupid??

 

[AntonToo]

As I have revealed you to be a Fascist in good standing,

Nothing at all?

 

[Dale Smith]

Are they not hinting that climate change deniers need to be silenced if not outright arrested????

No they are not, that's a straw-man.

Nor is it what is being discussed, threats of legal persecution ARE NOT threats of violence.

How is it legal to persecute someone for having their own opinion???

 

[PoliticalChic]

As I have revealed you to be a Fascist in good standing,

Nothing at all?

Wanna try for three strikes, Reichsführer?

OK...here you go:


As I have revealed you to be a Fascist in good standing, I imagine you would be a good one to ask this of....


....I've posted this query before, and none of you Nazis has deigned to answer....

As you clearly don't mind embarrassing yourself, perhaps you'd care to respond:

Democrat/Liberal Icon Lyndon Johnson had just such an abridgment enforced against the religious community. Under LBJ, the law was passed that deprived pastors of their right of free speech....or lose their tax exempt status.


What possible compelling government interest could this represent????

 

[PoliticalChic]

4. And...if Bill's wife is elected, and Democrat control continued.....here is your future:

"In 2015, a complaint was brought by transgender activist Martine Delaney against Roman Catholic Archbishop Julian Porteous for distributing the booklet Don’t Mess with Marriage, produced by the Australian Catholic Bishops Conference. The Anti-Discrimination Commissioner accepted the complaint, and the legal wheels began to turn.


[One might expect Christians to ask for exemptions...]

As a Christian leader, however, I have firmly opposed these exemptions, in both an opinion piece in a Hobart newspaper, and in a submission to the Attorney General.

I hold instead that the whole of Section 17(1) is rotten, and should be repealed not amended.
Why?
Because it attacks the fundamental human right to free speech." MercatorNet: Areopagitica Tasmania




And there you have the crux (pun intended) of the matter.....
We on the Right...religious folks....demand free speech for everyone....no matter what is said..

......including what "....offends, humiliates, intimidates, insults or ridicules....."

 

[PoliticalChic]

c. And from Obama's Justice Department: "Loretta Lynch Vows to Prosecute Anti-Muslim Speech"

You have to a be an ignoramus to believe that...which you are, so it totally makes sense.

Hate speech is fully protected right as far as United States government is concerned. What is NOT protected is threats of violence, which is what Loretta Lynch was talking about.

No, there’s no “hate speech” exception to the First Amendment

"Now obviously this is a country that is based on free speech, but when it edges towards violence, when we see the potential for someone lifting that mantle of anti-Muslim rhetoric—or, as we saw after 9/11, violence directed at individuals who may not even be Muslims but perceived to be Muslims, and they will suffer just as much—when we see that we will take action," said Lynch.

If you can't dispute any of these

Idiot, I just disputed your original quote, without any counter-argument from you....and now you tell me I can't dispute?

Now....you were asked three times....but have responded with naught by palpable fear of exposure.....



As you clearly don't mind embarrassing yourself, perhaps you'd care to respond:

Democrat/Liberal Icon Lyndon Johnson had just such an abridgment enforced against the religious community. Under LBJ, the law was passed that deprived pastors of their right of free speech....or lose their tax exempt status.


What possible compelling government interest could this represent????





So.....I'll summarize what was proven: there is no possible validation for the Democrat/Liberal/Fascist/Nazi attempt to deprive Americans of their birthright.....

...free speech.



Thanks for being as dumb as you are....you make this easy.

 

[AntonToo]

Are they not hinting that climate change deniers need to be silenced if not outright arrested????

No they are not, that's a straw-man.

Nor is it what is being discussed, threats of legal persecution ARE NOT threats of violence.

How is it legal to persecute someone for having their own opinion???

Again a straw-man, suing would not be for opinion, it would be for lying to make a buck while fully knowing environmental impact. Either way, that is not the topic is here and if you want to discuss it take it to another thread.

 

[AntonToo]

Democrat/Liberal Icon Lyndon

THAT IS NOT THE TOPIC, Lyndon has exactly NOTHING to do with your charges that DoJ is threatening to go after someone that merely states opinion, even if hateful, about Muslims.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Democrat/Liberal Icon Lyndon

THAT IS NOT THE TOPIC, Lyndon has exactly NOTHING to do with your charges that DoJ is threatening to go after someone that merely states opinion, even if hateful, about Muslims.

You've served your purpose....

....you're dismissed.