Bursting The Bubble

[PoliticalChic]

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 ‘global warming’ 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. Now….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-Semitism…

If it is easier, you can simply state that you are a low-life lying scum and like to be with others like you.

Ok, i’ll try to help you focus. I hope you’re not a complete lost cause.
Explain with evidence that the Democratic Party is assisting any “opposition to free speech“.

Prove that you are not a Putin “scum”, as you say.
By the way, I am not a Democrat.

"Explain with evidence that the Democratic Party is assisting any “opposition to free speech“."


Easy peasy, lemon squeezy.....

Watch this, dope:



What could be more American than the first amendment????

“Trump 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."”
Trump And Universities In Fight Over Free Speech, Federal Research Funding


What could be less American than Democrats endorsing censorship of individual’s 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


“Earlier this week, Obama-appointed Supreme Court Justice [Democrat] Elena Kagan wrote in her minority dissent to the Janus ruling that the Court had “weaponized the First Amendment.”

The majority opinion dwelt on issues of compelled speech, noting that “because 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.”

Kagan, however, has other ideas and claimed in her dissent that

“The First Amendment was meant for better things,” she concluded.

Kagan’s fantastical notion of “black-robed rulers overriding citizens’ choices” by “weaponizing the First Amendment” 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.

Citizens’ 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 “weaponizing the First Amendment” 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.” 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.


…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?

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 Putin’s IRA.

I understand USA’s First Amendment does not protect speech that incites violence or is libel.

What a “tool” 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!!!!

Yes, it is easy to lie and distort facts by cut/pasting easy peasy troll text.

Prove that I lied!
Is this not accurate? ...
USA’s 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.

 

[denmark]

Ok, i’ll try to help you focus. I hope you’re not a complete lost cause.
Explain with evidence that the Democratic Party is assisting any “opposition to free speech“.

Prove that you are not a Putin “scum”, as you say.
By the way, I am not a Democrat.

"Explain with evidence that the Democratic Party is assisting any “opposition to free speech“."


Easy peasy, lemon squeezy.....

Watch this, dope:



What could be more American than the first amendment????

“Trump 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."”
Trump And Universities In Fight Over Free Speech, Federal Research Funding


What could be less American than Democrats endorsing censorship of individual’s 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


“Earlier this week, Obama-appointed Supreme Court Justice [Democrat] Elena Kagan wrote in her minority dissent to the Janus ruling that the Court had “weaponized the First Amendment.”

The majority opinion dwelt on issues of compelled speech, noting that “because 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.”

Kagan, however, has other ideas and claimed in her dissent that

“The First Amendment was meant for better things,” she concluded.

Kagan’s fantastical notion of “black-robed rulers overriding citizens’ choices” by “weaponizing the First Amendment” 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.

Citizens’ 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 “weaponizing the First Amendment” 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.” 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.


…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?

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 Putin’s IRA.

I understand USA’s First Amendment does not protect speech that incites violence or is libel.

What a “tool” 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!!!!

Yes, it is easy to lie and distort facts by cut/pasting easy peasy troll text.

Prove that I lied!
Is this not accurate? ...
USA’s 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

.

Thank you for finally agreeing with me, although you’re too “stupid” (your word) to realize it.
The only thing you did was enhance the statement (USA’s First Amendment does not protect speech that incites violence or is libel.) with the legal add-on clarifier “imminent”, which does not negate my statement.

 

[The Professor]

This whole Russian collusion thing started with the infamous Steele dossier. This obviously fictitious compilation of documents was trumpeted by the MSM as being the God-given truth and many people, including some posters on the USMB foolishly believed it. It's time to set the record straight once and for all.

There are a number of reasons why the fairy tale called the dossier should never have been believed. First, the author of the dossier had an intense and irrational hatred of Trump and would say or do anything to destroy his chance of getting elected. For example, in September 2016, Steele admitted to Ohr his feelings against then-candidate Trump when Steele said he "was desperate that Donald Trump not get elected and was passionate about him not being president." This clear evidence of Steele's bias was recorded by Ohr at the time and subsequently in official FBI files—but not reflected in any of the Page FISA applications.

The Nunes FBI Memo, Annotated

Steele's animosity towards Trump should have put everyone on notice that nothing he says can be believed unless verified by an independent credible source. So far that has not happened and I'm sure it never will. Some news sources claimed that parts of the dossier were verified but they never mentioned which parts were true. This omission proves they know nothing about the documents .

Second, Steele himself admitted, under oath, that nothing in the fair tale was verified. He further claimed that the documents were never intended to be presented as truthful.

“According to Steele’s courtroom version, the dossier is merely a compilation of bits of “raw intelligence” that were “unverified” and that he passed along because they “warranted further investigation” — i.e., not because he could vouch for their truthfulness. He gave them to American and British government officials, he maintains, only because they raised potential national-security threats, not because they actually established any such threats. That, he now says, was for government investigators to figure out. In sum, Steele’s defamation defense is not that what he wrote was true but that his reports “must be critically viewed in light of the purpose for and circumstances in which the information was collected.” There is laugh-out-loud stuff here: Steele’s declamation of his profound commitment to discretion and secrecy lest his “raw,” “unverified,” and possibly false reports defame anyone. He claimed that he and Fusion GPS had a solemn agreement not to disclose his work . . . except for whenever they decided to disclose his work — including to Fusion’s clients and to major press organs during the stretch run of a contentious presidential election. But not to worry: These discussions were “off the record,” a term Steele claims to have understood to mean “to be used for the purpose of further research but would not be published or attributed.”

Read more at: Steele Dossier: Obama Officials Politicized Unverified ‘Intelligence’ | National Review

Third, the dossier was paid for by Hillary Clinton and the DNC. Generally employees (Christopher Steele) do what their employer (Hillary Clinton) wants them to do, especially when the employee is “desperate” and “passionate” about doing his employer's bidding. Further, Hillary's associates fed allegations to Steele, meaning that not only did Clinton pay for the dossier, she actually helped compose it!

Debunked anti-Trump dossier left out Hillary Clinton connection

CONCLUSION: No one of average intelligence, knowing the facts, could possibly believe that anything in the dossier was substantiated. The FBI knew it was unverified yet this fairy tale was presented to the FISA courts as being true. The dossier was so important in getting the FISA warrants that then FBI deputy director Andrew McCabe testified that “no surveillance warrant would have been sought” from the FISA court “without the Steele dossier information” (see link below). Everyone involved in this shameful and illegal hoax belongs in prison. Finally, all those who were indicted based upon this illegally obtained “evidence” should be made whole.

House memo states disputed dossier was key to FBI’s FISA warrant to surveil members of Team Trump

 

[rightwinger]

One nation, under God, indivisible. With liberty and justice for all

Thank a Liberal

 

[rightwinger]

PC, I believe we can start over again. The forefathers believed in that i.e. the 2nd, if needed.
I say we offer the lunatic left a deal to form their own country in the NE and NW and we take the rest and form a new country.

If they don't take the deal, oh well..

You mean "Oh well, we'll just go back to complaining on a message board?"

It is better to light a candle than to curse the darkness.
attributed to Confucius

You're going to have a candlelight vigil?

That's a nice thought, but I doubt it will change anyone's mind.

Are we speaking about folks with minds?


Not Liberals, huh?


My mission is to provide the truth that government school deprived them of.
Sorry to end a sentence with a preposition.


Look at the stats, and you will find that five to ten times the number read a thread as post in same. They will see that my posts are 100% true, correct and accurate.
That's 100%....the other side fails in any dispute.

That is my target audience.



Now then.....what do you do that's constructive????

Nobody reads them

They just mock them

 

[PoliticalChic]

The Democrat's objective:


“Criminalizing Free Speech


“The definition of a hate crime has been expanded in some countries to include speech. Merely stating your religious beliefs is now lumped in with committing heinous acts against people, as if they are the same. It’s a clever tactic. The U.S. passed a federal hate crimes law in 2009. It does not include speech — yet.


The First Amendment protects free speech in the U.S. But similar to how progressives have gradually eroded much of the Second Amendment, they are slowly taking apart the First Amendment. By the time conservatives wake up and realize what’s happening, it will be too late. Even if you don’t believe the First Amendment protects speech on the tech giants’ platforms, the bakers who have been civilly tried for refusing to bake same-sex wedding cakes are clearly engaging in free speech. The case of the Oregon bakers known as “Sweet Cakes” is currently at the Supreme Court. If their free speech is squelched, what’s coming next is criminalization of the First Amendment.” Criminalizing Free Speech

 

[PoliticalChic]

“...Make Campus Great Again.” Spoiler alert: the way to make campus great again is to reaffirm commitment to free speech, civil discourse, and the encouragement of plural opinions on campus.

Last week, President Trump took a big step towards doing just that when he signed an Executive Order directing federal agencies to withhold federal research funding if academic institutions do not uphold and foster an environment of free inquiry.


I thought surely ... most institutions of higher education treated students, and the First Amendment, with more respect.
It turns out I was wrong.


...I have spent years documenting the misconduct of biased professors, writing about draconian speech codes at public colleges and universities, and highlighting the degradation of academic exploration and the marketplace of ideas. In fact, it turns out my experience with campus censorship was not unique; rather, it was one of the thousands of examples of our failed American education system.



...President Trump signed an executive order to protect the free speech of Americans on college campuses.
“Under the guise of speech codes, safe spaces, and trigger warnings, these universities have tried to restrict free thought, impose total conformity, and shut down the voices of great young Americans like those here today. All of that changes starting right now,” Trump said.
The White House has made it clear that they stand with campus conservatives and every other young person fighting for freedom in America.


Freedom of speech is not a left vs. right issue. It’s an American issue. And Trump’s action is a great first step in making campus great again."
Trump’s Free Speech Executive Order Can ‘Make Campus Great Again’

 

[karpenter]

This Was One Of The Best Threads I've Read In A While
Outstanding Job, Ma'am

 

[PoliticalChic]

This Was One Of The Best Threads I've Read In A While
Outstanding Job, Ma'am

With great appreciation, karpy!