Free speech vs. taxation without representation

[Lonestar_logic]

I understand that perfectly Sally. And by that defintion the USA is NOT a democracy. What part of that do you not understand?

Well now Nancy, I've never stated that the USA was a democracy. As a matter of fact I stated

"the United States is, indeed, a republic, not a democracy. However, by popular usage the word "democracy" come to mean a form of government in which the government derives its power from the people and is accountable to them for the use of that power. In this sense the United States might accurately be called a democracy."

So pull your head out of your ass and pay attention.

Why do you call him Nancy?

For sheer aggravation.

 

[Ravi]

Well now Nancy, I've never stated that the USA was a democracy. As a matter of fact I statedSo pull your head out of your ass and pay attention.

Why do you call him Nancy?

For sheer aggravation.

He aggravates me, too...but why insult women?

Though I have to admit it is amusing watching you feminize someone that is whomping your ass all over the board.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Why do you call him Nancy?

For sheer aggravation.

He aggravates me, too...but why insult women?

Though I have to admit it is amusing watching you feminize someone that is whomping your ass all over the board.

And just how is that insulting to women?

And her whooping my ass? Well that's a matter of opinion and in all honesty I don't hold much stock in your opinion. But I'm glad you find it amusing, it's always a pleasure to entertain people.

 

[Anguille]

Nancifold. I like the sound of that.

 

[Ravi]

For sheer aggravation.

He aggravates me, too...but why insult women?

Though I have to admit it is amusing watching you feminize someone that is whomping your ass all over the board.

And just how is that insulting to women?

And her whooping my ass? Well that's a matter of opinion and in all honesty I don't hold much stock in your opinion. But I'm glad you find it amusing, it's always a pleasure to entertain people.

Are you a conservative?

 

[manifold]

thh!

 

[Lonestar_logic]

He aggravates me, too...but why insult women?

Though I have to admit it is amusing watching you feminize someone that is whomping your ass all over the board.

And just how is that insulting to women?

And her whooping my ass? Well that's a matter of opinion and in all honesty I don't hold much stock in your opinion. But I'm glad you find it amusing, it's always a pleasure to entertain people.

Are you a conservative?

I don't adhere to any ideology. I'm an independent thinker and I vote for who I believe will do the least amount of harm. I do find that I favor more of the conservative principles than that of the liberals in that I believe in less government, personal responsibility, national security and I believe that the US is a noble nation that has done far more good than bad.

 

[manifold]

I don't adhere to any ideology. I'm an independent thinker and I vote for who I believe will do the least amount of harm. I do find that I favor more of the conservative principles than that of the liberals in that I believe in less government, personal responsibility, national security and I believe that the US is a noble nation that has done far more good than bad.

I can agree with that.

But I don't understand why you seem to want to imply that rule of the majority applies in the United States.

 

[Cecilie1200]

This is probably a bit of a stretch, but I couldn't think of the proper words to describe what is going on with the disruptive tea party brigade.

I've been reading that they are disrupting town hall meetings about health care all across the country. While I certainly think they have a right to be assholes, I'm not convinced they have a right to prevent the people that attend these meetings from interacting with their representatives. They are disrupting the free flow of information and IMO are lower than scum.

What do you think?

I think you are a hypocrite and have absolutely no problem with the same behavior from Democrats,

I would like to politely request that anyone who is "outraged" by this behavior please link me to any occasion on which they posted a similar outrage toward Code Pink, which group routinely exhibits much more disruptive behavior at any gathering they can, including (if I remember correctly) the State of the Union address and other events on the floor of Congress, and the "protesters" who shout down Republican speakers on college campuses, unplug their microphones, and even assault them.

If they cannot link me to matching outrage against disruptive behavior on the left, I would like to cordially invite them to shut their blathering, hypocritical pie holes on this subject.

 

[mattskramer]

This is probably a bit of a stretch, but I couldn't think of the proper words to describe what is going on with the disruptive tea party brigade.

I've been reading that they are disrupting town hall meetings about health care all across the country. While I certainly think they have a right to be assholes, I'm not convinced they have a right to prevent the people that attend these meetings from interacting with their representatives. They are disrupting the free flow of information and IMO are lower than scum.

What do you think?

I support freedom of speech to a strong degree. I think that the Tea Party people, Code Pink ladies, and those that made a ruckus in Philadelphia are doing more harm than good for their causes. Calm civil discourse would be a much better strategy. Yet, provided that they are not really disrupting our government process (Ex: interfering with a congressional hearing) go ahead and let them have their silly ranting and raving. People will decide in due time whether or not their point was adequately made.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

This is probably a bit of a stretch, but I couldn't think of the proper words to describe what is going on with the disruptive tea party brigade.

I've been reading that they are disrupting town hall meetings about health care all across the country. While I certainly think they have a right to be assholes, I'm not convinced they have a right to prevent the people that attend these meetings from interacting with their representatives. They are disrupting the free flow of information and IMO are lower than scum.

What do you think?

Since I dont like the healthcare plan as proposed I dont mind too much but some video i've seen is out of hand.

They should stick to protesting outside and asking civil, but tough, questions inside.

Shouting people down isn't getting your message out, its marginalizing it.

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

We are not being taxed without representation. Your political hack may not be adhering to the Constitution and ignoring you and your fellow Constituents, but that is not the same thing as being taxed without representation.

It is about time that the employers of this Republic started to get mad at the pathetic job their employees have been doing. The employees have been thumbing their nose at the Constitution, and whoring themselves out to the highest political bidder. And the employers (as a whole) have been allowing it to go on for years. If some people get disruptive, and violate a local or state law, then they have to pay the cost.

The First Amendment forbids Congress from passing any law... It does not prevent the local and state governments from passing laws that regulate the exercise of the First Amendment.

 

[Ravi]

The First Amendment forbids Congress from passing any law... It does not prevent the local and state governments from passing laws that regulate the exercise of the First Amendment.

No...state and local governments cannot violate constitutionally protected rights of American citizens.

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

The First Amendment forbids Congress from passing any law... It does not prevent the local and state governments from passing laws that regulate the exercise of the First Amendment.

No...state and local governments cannot violate constitutionally protected rights of American citizens.

I am correct.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Note "Congress shall make no law..." The restriction is on the federal government not the respective states.

 

[manifold]

The First Amendment forbids Congress from passing any law... It does not prevent the local and state governments from passing laws that regulate the exercise of the First Amendment.

No...state and local governments cannot violate constitutionally protected rights of American citizens.

I am correct.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Note "Congress shall make no law..." The restriction is on the federal government not the respective states.

If that were true I can think of at least a few states that would have established a state religion by now.

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

No...state and local governments cannot violate constitutionally protected rights of American citizens.

I am correct.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Note "Congress shall make no law..." The restriction is on the federal government not the respective states.

If that were true I can think of at least a few states that would have established a state religion by now.

If you study our founding history, you will find that many states had their own state recognized religion. The restriction is on the federal government not the states. That is what the Bill of Rights is about. The First Amendment is not a restriction on both the federal and state governments.

 

[manifold]

The restriction is on the federal government not the states. That is what the Bill of Rights is about. The First Amendment is not a restriction on both the federal and state governments.

You couldn't possibly be more wrong if you tried. But I'm guessing that's because you are trying.

You go ahead and get on with your bad self.

 

[mattskramer]

No...state and local governments cannot violate constitutionally protected rights of American citizens.

I am correct.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Note "Congress shall make no law..." The restriction is on the federal government not the respective states.

If that were true I can think of at least a few states that would have established a state religion by now.

There is that which is Constitutional and that which is practical. If you were to interpret the Second Amendment literally: “…the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” then I should be allowed to own 100 fully functional bazookas, and some Sherman tanks, along with 200 machine guns if I can afford such things. Yet, I think that even the strongest believer in a literal interpretation of the Constitution would pause.

 

[Xenophon]

This is probably a bit of a stretch, but I couldn't think of the proper words to describe what is going on with the disruptive tea party brigade.

I've been reading that they are disrupting town hall meetings about health care all across the country. While I certainly think they have a right to be assholes, I'm not convinced they have a right to prevent the people that attend these meetings from interacting with their representatives. They are disrupting the free flow of information and IMO are lower than scum.

What do you think?

That you are spinning excuses for an administartion that is becoming more facist by the minute.

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

The restriction is on the federal government not the states. That is what the Bill of Rights is about. The First Amendment is not a restriction on both the federal and state governments.

You couldn't possibly be more wrong if you tried. But I'm guessing that's because you are trying.

You go ahead and get on with your bad self.

It is a fact that the Bill of Rights was written to restrict the federal government. I am correct in stating, that many individual states had an official state religion before and after the Constitution was ratified.

You have told me twice that I am wrong. You are welcome to your opinion, but you haven't backed it up with fact. Prove me wrong via the Constitution, and our supporting founding documents. Good luck with that. lol