PoliticalChic
Diamond Member
- Thread starter
- #61
Yes, it is easy to lie and distort facts by cut/pasting easy peasy troll text.You just demonstrated with your prepared one-sided cut/paste material (aka propaganda) that you work or volunteer for a political trolling agency, just like Putinās IRA.Ok, iāll try to help you focus. I hope youāre not a complete lost cause.What????
Back....begging for another chance?
I am magnanimous.....so, here you go:
1. We warned you what a low-life cur Ted Kennedy was...but you called him 'the Liberal Lion of the Senate.'
2. We told you Bill Clinton was a rapist...but you denied, denied, denied....until the Times and the rest admitted it.
3. We clued you into the facts about Hussein Obama, the most prodigious liar ever to infest the White House, that he wasn't up to the job, but you refused to look further than the color of his skin.
4. We explained that āglobal warmingā is nothing more than a scheme to impose global governance.
5. We told you that the Democrat Party hated Jews and the Jewish nation, yet you empowered them to guarantee Iran nuclear weapons.
6. Nowā¦.two year into the charade by your paladins, guess what? Yet another dry hole, another of your dreams ending in tears. No indictments, no charges, no impeachment. Exactly what we told you two years ago.
And....while you're here, against orders, you might want to explain how you can support this:
The Democrat Party is now running on full-blown anti-white racism, socialism, infanticide, opposition to free speech, substituting illegal alien voters for the American citizenry, and anti-Semitismā¦
If it is easier, you can simply state that you are a low-life lying scum and like to be with others like you.
Explain with evidence that the Democratic Party is assisting any āopposition to free speechā.
Prove that you are not a Putin āscumā, as you say.
By the way, I am not a Democrat.
"Explain with evidence that the Democratic Party is assisting any āopposition to free speechā."
Easy peasy, lemon squeezy.....
Watch this, dope:
What could be more American than the first amendment????
āTrump And Universities In Fight Over Free Speech, Federal Research Funding
His executive orderconditions research funding on "compliance with the First Amendment" and directs federal agencies to ensure that institutions receiving federal research or education grants "promote free inquiry."ā
Trump And Universities In Fight Over Free Speech, Federal Research Funding
What could be less American than Democrats endorsing censorship of individualās freedom of speech?
"In her 1993 article "Regulation of Hate Speech and Pornography After R.A.V," for the University of Chicago Law Review, [Democrat Elena] Kagan writes:
"I take it as a given that we live in a society marred by racial and gender inequality, that certain forms of speech perpetuate and promote this inequality, and that the uncoerced disappearance of such speech would be cause for great elation."
In a 1996 paper, "Private Speech, Public Purpose: The Role of Governmental Motive in First Amendment Doctrine," Kagan argued it may be proper to suppress speech because it is offensive to society or to the government.
That paper asserted First Amendment doctrine is comprised of "motives and ... actions infested with them" and she goes so far as to claim that "First Amendment law is best understood and most readily explained as a kind of motive-hunting."
Kagan's name was also on a brief, United States V. Stevens, dug up by the Washington Examiner, stating: "Whether a given category of speech enjoys First Amendment protection depends upon a categorical balancing of the value of the speech against its societal costs."
If the government doesn't like what you say, Elena Kagan believes it is the duty of courts to tell you to shut up. If some pantywaist is offended by what you say, Elena Kagan believes your words can be "disappeared".
WyBlog -- Elena Kagan's America: some speech can be "disappeared"
Elena Kagan Radical anti-gun nut?
Brandenburg v. Ohio - Wikipedia
āEarlier this week, Obama-appointed Supreme Court Justice [Democrat] Elena Kagan wrote in her minority dissent to the Janus ruling that the Court had āweaponized the First Amendment.ā
The majority opinion dwelt on issues of compelled speech, noting that ābecause such compulsion so plainly violates the Constitution, most of our free speech cases have involved restrictions on what can be said, rather than laws compelling speech. But measures compelling speech are at least as threatening.ā
Kagan, however, has other ideas and claimed in her dissent that
āThe First Amendment was meant for better things,ā she concluded.
Kaganās fantastical notion of āblack-robed rulers overriding citizensā choicesā by āweaponizing the First Amendmentā is puzzling. Citizens in non-right-to-work states are completely free to join a union if they so wish, and in doing so, commit to paying union dues. The only change here is that unions can no longer extort dues from non-members in any state.
Citizensā choices have not been overridden; indeed, citizen choice is expanded under this ruling. They can join a union or not join a union, those who do not join cannot be compelled to pay union dues, but they are also not barred from doing so if they wish.
Her point about āweaponizing the First Amendmentā is equally confounding. The Founders intendedthe First Amendment to be a weapon . . . against government tyranny and oppression. They were insistent that freedom of speech was required to check government and to maintain a free and independent citizenry.ā Who's afraid of the 1st Amendment?
BTW, this Democrat star Kagan has been guilty of lying, and fraud as well as opposing free speech.
ā¦the Democrat Party is now running on full-blown anti-white racism, socialism, infanticide, opposition to free speech, substituting illegal alien voters for the American citizenry, and anti-Semitism.
So, tool, how do you feel having proven that I am never wrong?
I understand USAās First Amendment does not protect speech that incites violence or is libel.
What a ātoolā you are.
I just buried you with a documented proof of Democrat's opposing free speech.....and you're trying to lie your way out of the contumely.
You've just proven everything I said about Liberals/Democrats.
Rule #1 Every argument from Democrats and Liberals is a misrepresentation, a fabrication, or a bald-faced lie.
This is just too darn easy!!!!
Prove that I lied!
Is this not accurate? ...
USAās First Amendment does not protect speech that incites violence or is libel.
No, it is not accurate, but you are too stupid to understand why.
Begin by looking up 'imminent.'
Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969),[1] was a landmark United States Supreme Court case interpreting the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The Court held that government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless that speech is "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.
Brandenburg v. Ohio - Wikipedia
This is the difference: the Democrats, spearheaded by Elena Kagan....who they all voted for......believes government can ban any speech they decide they don't like, as Google, twitter, et al have done.
Democrats are today's Nazis, and you, a good German.
Should I say 'good-bye,' or would you rather Sieg Heil?
Guillotining you would make only an aesthetic difference.