Is USMB hate speech?

[kaz]

So leftists, unlike the leftist media, schools and universities and other public venues, this board is allowing hate groups like the Republican party, libertarians and anarchists to freely voice our views. Hate speech like this isn't protected by the Constitution, right? That's what you keep telling us. Should it be shut down or at least regulated? Could it be saved when you take over and silence us?

This fails as a straw man fallacy.

No one on "the left" has claimed rightwing hate speech isn't entitled to Constitutional protections.

No one on "the left" advocates for silencing rightwing hate speech.

Indeed, liberals have consistently defended the right of conservatives to engage in hate speech absent punitive measures by government.

not true, are conservative speakers allowed to speak at Berkley? Harvard? Columbia? on CNN? MSNBC? Are there conservative writers on the staff at the NY Times?

Yes, the left is actively trying to block the rights to free speech of conservatives, republicans, libertarians, and everyone else that does not recite the left wing mantra on a daily basis.

Every church I try to stage a rock concert at for legalization of weed is turned down...Damn leftist.

Another babbling irrelevant post by broken English boy

Says the king of nothing.

More incoherent mumbling

 

[kaz]

A wall is good. A financial wall would be better.

Both would help a lot with illegal immigration in general. But only a physical wall would help with murderers, racists and drug dealers crossing the border

 

[joaquinmiller]

So leftists, unlike the leftist media, schools and universities and other public venues, this board is allowing hate groups like the Republican party, libertarians and anarchists to freely voice our views. Hate speech like this isn't protected by the Constitution, right? That's what you keep telling us. Should it be shut down or at least regulated? Could it be saved when you take over and silence us?

Boo-hoo.

 

[Moonglow]

This fails as a straw man fallacy.

No one on "the left" has claimed rightwing hate speech isn't entitled to Constitutional protections.

No one on "the left" advocates for silencing rightwing hate speech.

Indeed, liberals have consistently defended the right of conservatives to engage in hate speech absent punitive measures by government.

not true, are conservative speakers allowed to speak at Berkley? Harvard? Columbia? on CNN? MSNBC? Are there conservative writers on the staff at the NY Times?

Yes, the left is actively trying to block the rights to free speech of conservatives, republicans, libertarians, and everyone else that does not recite the left wing mantra on a daily basis.

Every church I try to stage a rock concert at for legalization of weed is turned down...Damn leftist.

Another babbling irrelevant post by broken English boy

Says the king of nothing.

More incoherent mumbling

I can't help it if you can't read, try night classes for ESL.

 

[Crepitus]

So leftists, unlike the leftist media, schools and universities and other public venues, this board is allowing hate groups like the Republican party, libertarians and anarchists to freely voice our views. Hate speech like this isn't protected by the Constitution, right? That's what you keep telling us. Should it be shut down or at least regulated? Could it be saved when you take over and silence us?

It is hate speech.

Every time somebody quotes trump.

Every time some republican says "I'm not a racist but...".

Every time somebody says "libtards should leave the country/be imprisoned/killed.

Every time somebody says some variation of "Muslims are all evil" and/or advocates banning them.

Every time some republican says "they're gonna take out jobs and cost us billions of dollars living off the welfare system" (yes, I know that's contradictory but they don't)

The list goes on and on and on. Feel free to add your own examples.

Your straw men aside, you didn't answer the question. What should happen to USMB when you take over and can silence your opposition as you're working so hard to do now?

None of my comments were straw men.

I don't want to silence anyone. If I wasn't interested in changing people's viewpoint I'd be over at DU or something instead of here on a heavily tRump leaning forum.

 

[joaquinmiller]

So leftists, unlike the leftist media, schools and universities and other public venues, this board is allowing hate groups like the Republican party, libertarians and anarchists to freely voice our views. Hate speech like this isn't protected by the Constitution, right? That's what you keep telling us. Should it be shut down or at least regulated? Could it be saved when you take over and silence us?

It is hate speech.

Every time somebody quotes trump.

Every time some republican says "I'm not a racist but...".

Every time somebody says "libtards should leave the country/be imprisoned/killed.

Every time somebody says some variation of "Muslims are all evil" and/or advocates banning them.

Every time some republican says "they're gonna take out jobs and cost us billions of dollars living off the welfare system" (yes, I know that's contradictory but they don't)

The list goes on and on and on. Feel free to add your own examples.

Your straw men aside, you didn't answer the question. What should happen to USMB when you take over and can silence your opposition as you're working so hard to do now?

None of my comments were straw men.

I don't want to silence anyone. If I wasn't interested in changing people's viewpoint I'd be over at DU or something instead of here on a heavily tRump leaning forum.

He's pining for persecution. Maybe it's unrequited Christianity.

 

[Cosmos]

So leftists, unlike the leftist media, schools and universities and other public venues, this board is allowing hate groups like the Republican party, libertarians and anarchists to freely voice our views. Hate speech like this isn't protected by the Constitution, right? That's what you keep telling us. Should it be shut down or at least regulated? Could it be saved when you take over and silence us?

It is hate speech.

Every time somebody quotes trump.

Every time some republican says "I'm not a racist but...".

Every time somebody says "libtards should leave the country/be imprisoned/killed.

Every time somebody says some variation of "Muslims are all evil" and/or advocates banning them.

Every time some republican says "they're gonna take out jobs and cost us billions of dollars living off the welfare system" (yes, I know that's contradictory but they don't)

The list goes on and on and on. Feel free to add your own examples.

Your straw men aside, you didn't answer the question. What should happen to USMB when you take over and can silence your opposition as you're working so hard to do now?

None of my comments were straw men.

I don't want to silence anyone. If I wasn't interested in changing people's viewpoint I'd be over at DU or something instead of here on a heavily tRump leaning forum.

He's pining for persecution. Maybe it's unrequited Christianity.

Ah.......so this is where the chickenshits hang out.

 

[Cosmos]

The far right would shut down the opposition if it could.

You're an imbecile. All you have to do is take note of recent events at Berkeley University or even the Little Red Hen to know the opposite is true.

Even i know it’s not “Berkeley University”, but University of CALIFORNIA at Berkeley, or UC Berkeley .
From what i read, it was not the students who were violent against free speech, but a rougue extremist group without intellect.

Oh, well excuse the hell outta me. In my haste did I offend you? I certainly hope not. Give yourself a pat on the back, snowflake.

But hey, that doesn't change the fact that the weenies at UC Berkeley turned their backs when it came to protecting a legitimate speaking engagement from leftist fascists who fancy themselves as "liberals". Funny how one fascist leftist atrocity leads to another, eh? Now we have a Member of Congress openly calling for harassing opposition voters in restaurants and gas stations.

 

[joaquinmiller]

When you have the leader of the free world advocating and supporting treason, violence, corruption and hate speech, what in the hell do you expect from its people?

If you're talking about Trump, he's abandoning the US's role as leader of the free world.

Arguably, America First is incompatible with world leadership.

Which article of the Constitution assigns the duties of world leadership to the POTUS?

None at all.

Someone is going to lead, and if you're not the lead dog, the view never changes. There are advantages to leadership. Would you prefer those advantages go to the Chinese or another entity?

 

[Wry Catcher]

Nope, you should not be censored! Unless you threaten violence or verbally attack someone's family. For the record, I don't hate you, nor do I hate anyone.

I do wonder about the judgments made by you, and what type of governance you would support - if any?

Many on the Right claim to be conservatives, and yet nothing in Trump's tweets or policies suggest he is anything more than a bully, an iconoclast and self serving.

Libertarians reject the Social Contract Theory, and offer a utopia with few rules and fewer concerns for others.

Republicans are in a transition, do they support authoritarianism and isolationism, speak out against the reactionary and anti Buckley conservatism, and risk being targeted as RINO's.

Democrats may stabilize the government, and fill the need for a separation of power. The current Congressional leadership, and too many members of Congress, have failed to do their job as a check and balance on Presidential Power.

The outcome is in the hands of the voters, and the vast majority of the American voters have in the past sought to balance the power in Washington. I hope they do once again come November.

Vote, but please don't vote by rote, and consider how your vote will effect the future for the generations to follow.

nice sentiments. But totally off base. The USA in 1776 was not a divided government, nor was the country divided ideologically. They were all americans who fought for freedom from the king of England and drafted a constitution guarantying individual freedoms, such freedoms included the freedom to succeed and the freedom to fail. The constitution does not guaranty equal results, only equal opportunity.

today we are seeing a resurgence of the sprit of 1776, we have a president who puts this country first, follows the constitution, and is negotiating international deals that are fair and just.

On immigration. In the 1920s the government put a temporary stop on all immigration so that the recent immigrants could assimilate and become americans. It may be time to do that again if this country is to survive.

There was no US government in 1776, we were a colony. The Loyalists and Patriots was divided ideologically, those who supported the King, and those who sought self government.

I disagree that our President puts our country first. I'd implore you to watch his feet, not his lips. He has issued EO's which are not listed as a power of the president in Art II, though by tradition they have become grandfathered and have the force of law.

At the moment he has denied the Rights of the migrants in the Bill of Rights, amendments 4, 5, 6, 8 & 9.

Time will tell if he has violated other areas such as clause 7 (Emoluments) and 9 (His oath of office).

BTW, in the 1920's, were the "recent immigrants" jailed?

oK, change it to 1789 and read my post again.

people in our country illegally are not immigrants, they are criminals, they have no rights.

the immigrants in the 1920s came in legally, mostly through Ellis Island. your comparison is totally invalid

You're wrong (again), people here illegally have rights, read the Bill of Rights closely, they do not apply only to US Citizens. And, in doing so read section one of the 14th Amendment carefully, and you will see Trump's EO's are at best misguided.

Section one of the 14th amendment doesn't mention illegal aliens. Try again

Either you are a damn liar (likely) or unable to comprehend the written word. Hint: Read the last part which begins, "; nor shall any State deprive ANY PERSON of life, liberty or property without due process of law ...".

Don't try to spin this to not include the Federal Government, since the 9th and 10th articles in the Bill of Rights support this statement and my post.

 

[Defiant1]

Catapulting them back across the border is not depriving them of life, liberty, or property.

 

[Redfish]

nice sentiments. But totally off base. The USA in 1776 was not a divided government, nor was the country divided ideologically. They were all americans who fought for freedom from the king of England and drafted a constitution guarantying individual freedoms, such freedoms included the freedom to succeed and the freedom to fail. The constitution does not guaranty equal results, only equal opportunity.

today we are seeing a resurgence of the sprit of 1776, we have a president who puts this country first, follows the constitution, and is negotiating international deals that are fair and just.

On immigration. In the 1920s the government put a temporary stop on all immigration so that the recent immigrants could assimilate and become americans. It may be time to do that again if this country is to survive.

There was no US government in 1776, we were a colony. The Loyalists and Patriots was divided ideologically, those who supported the King, and those who sought self government.

I disagree that our President puts our country first. I'd implore you to watch his feet, not his lips. He has issued EO's which are not listed as a power of the president in Art II, though by tradition they have become grandfathered and have the force of law.

At the moment he has denied the Rights of the migrants in the Bill of Rights, amendments 4, 5, 6, 8 & 9.

Time will tell if he has violated other areas such as clause 7 (Emoluments) and 9 (His oath of office).

BTW, in the 1920's, were the "recent immigrants" jailed?

oK, change it to 1789 and read my post again.

people in our country illegally are not immigrants, they are criminals, they have no rights.

the immigrants in the 1920s came in legally, mostly through Ellis Island. your comparison is totally invalid

You're wrong (again), people here illegally have rights, read the Bill of Rights closely, they do not apply only to US Citizens. And, in doing so read section one of the 14th Amendment carefully, and you will see Trump's EO's are at best misguided.

Section one of the 14th amendment doesn't mention illegal aliens. Try again

Either you are a damn liar (likely) or unable to comprehend the written word. Hint: Read the last part which begins, "; nor shall any State deprive ANY PERSON of life, liberty or property without due process of law ...".

Don't try to spin this to not include the Federal Government, since the 9th and 10th articles in the Bill of Rights support this statement and my post.

people in this country illegally have the same rights as citizens who have committed a crime. They have the right to a trial, legal representation, due process, etc. That's all they are entitled to. Yes, all criminals have the same rights, citizens or aliens (legal and illegal). The problem is that you want to give full citizenship rights to illegal aliens. that would violate the constitution.

 

[kaz]

So leftists, unlike the leftist media, schools and universities and other public venues, this board is allowing hate groups like the Republican party, libertarians and anarchists to freely voice our views. Hate speech like this isn't protected by the Constitution, right? That's what you keep telling us. Should it be shut down or at least regulated? Could it be saved when you take over and silence us?

Boo-hoo.

Heres a tissue

 

[kaz]

not true, are conservative speakers allowed to speak at Berkley? Harvard? Columbia? on CNN? MSNBC? Are there conservative writers on the staff at the NY Times?

Yes, the left is actively trying to block the rights to free speech of conservatives, republicans, libertarians, and everyone else that does not recite the left wing mantra on a daily basis.

Every church I try to stage a rock concert at for legalization of weed is turned down...Damn leftist.

Another babbling irrelevant post by broken English boy

Says the king of nothing.

More incoherent mumbling

I can't help it if you can't read, try night classes for ESL.

Gotcha broken english boy

 

[OldLady]

It doesn't get much hatier than USMB, at least online.

Then why the fuck are you still here?

Go easy on Mac. He doesn't hurt anybody and he's one of our more sane posters, regardless of what he believes. At least he's not foaming at the mouth like half these jackals.

 

[OldLady]

So leftists, unlike the leftist media, schools and universities and other public venues, this board is allowing hate groups like the Republican party, libertarians and anarchists to freely voice our views. Hate speech like this isn't protected by the Constitution, right? That's what you keep telling us. Should it be shut down or at least regulated? Could it be saved when you take over and silence us?

All speech is Constitutionally protected. That does not preclude penalties for damages precipitated by your speech.

For example, you can yell "Fire" in a crowded theater all you like. If people just sit there and laugh, there are no damages, ergo no penalty.

If they panic and people are injured, you're liable.

There are so many on here, though, that are really feeding the hatred and pushing both sides to worse extremes. I'm not sure it's all that helpful in the larger sense to let that go wild.

Including you

Pretty interesting you think that. Says a lot more about you than it does about me, imo.

 

[Mac1958]

It doesn't get much hatier than USMB, at least online.

Then why the fuck are you still here?

Go easy on Mac. He doesn't hurt anybody and he's one of our more sane posters, regardless of what he believes. At least he's not foaming at the mouth like half these jackals.

I'll assume that's my stalker. It's been a while since his comments appeared on my screen.

There's something wrong there, and I don't have to enable it. Enough.
.

 

[kaz]

So leftists, unlike the leftist media, schools and universities and other public venues, this board is allowing hate groups like the Republican party, libertarians and anarchists to freely voice our views. Hate speech like this isn't protected by the Constitution, right? That's what you keep telling us. Should it be shut down or at least regulated? Could it be saved when you take over and silence us?

It is hate speech.

Every time somebody quotes trump.

Every time some republican says "I'm not a racist but...".

Every time somebody says "libtards should leave the country/be imprisoned/killed.

Every time somebody says some variation of "Muslims are all evil" and/or advocates banning them.

Every time some republican says "they're gonna take out jobs and cost us billions of dollars living off the welfare system" (yes, I know that's contradictory but they don't)

The list goes on and on and on. Feel free to add your own examples.

Your straw men aside, you didn't answer the question. What should happen to USMB when you take over and can silence your opposition as you're working so hard to do now?

None of my comments were straw men.

I don't want to silence anyone. If I wasn't interested in changing people's viewpoint I'd be over at DU or something instead of here on a heavily tRump leaning forum.

Leftists cant abide the thought words you disagree with are spoken anywhere. On campuses you halt republican free speech when you could just not go

 

[kaz]

So leftists, unlike the leftist media, schools and universities and other public venues, this board is allowing hate groups like the Republican party, libertarians and anarchists to freely voice our views. Hate speech like this isn't protected by the Constitution, right? That's what you keep telling us. Should it be shut down or at least regulated? Could it be saved when you take over and silence us?

It is hate speech.

Every time somebody quotes trump.

Every time some republican says "I'm not a racist but...".

Every time somebody says "libtards should leave the country/be imprisoned/killed.

Every time somebody says some variation of "Muslims are all evil" and/or advocates banning them.

Every time some republican says "they're gonna take out jobs and cost us billions of dollars living off the welfare system" (yes, I know that's contradictory but they don't)

The list goes on and on and on. Feel free to add your own examples.

Your straw men aside, you didn't answer the question. What should happen to USMB when you take over and can silence your opposition as you're working so hard to do now?

None of my comments were straw men.

I don't want to silence anyone. If I wasn't interested in changing people's viewpoint I'd be over at DU or something instead of here on a heavily tRump leaning forum.

He's pining for persecution. Maybe it's unrequited Christianity.

And the circle jerk begins ...

 

[kaz]

nice sentiments. But totally off base. The USA in 1776 was not a divided government, nor was the country divided ideologically. They were all americans who fought for freedom from the king of England and drafted a constitution guarantying individual freedoms, such freedoms included the freedom to succeed and the freedom to fail. The constitution does not guaranty equal results, only equal opportunity.

today we are seeing a resurgence of the sprit of 1776, we have a president who puts this country first, follows the constitution, and is negotiating international deals that are fair and just.

On immigration. In the 1920s the government put a temporary stop on all immigration so that the recent immigrants could assimilate and become americans. It may be time to do that again if this country is to survive.

There was no US government in 1776, we were a colony. The Loyalists and Patriots was divided ideologically, those who supported the King, and those who sought self government.

I disagree that our President puts our country first. I'd implore you to watch his feet, not his lips. He has issued EO's which are not listed as a power of the president in Art II, though by tradition they have become grandfathered and have the force of law.

At the moment he has denied the Rights of the migrants in the Bill of Rights, amendments 4, 5, 6, 8 & 9.

Time will tell if he has violated other areas such as clause 7 (Emoluments) and 9 (His oath of office).

BTW, in the 1920's, were the "recent immigrants" jailed?

oK, change it to 1789 and read my post again.

people in our country illegally are not immigrants, they are criminals, they have no rights.

the immigrants in the 1920s came in legally, mostly through Ellis Island. your comparison is totally invalid

You're wrong (again), people here illegally have rights, read the Bill of Rights closely, they do not apply only to US Citizens. And, in doing so read section one of the 14th Amendment carefully, and you will see Trump's EO's are at best misguided.

Section one of the 14th amendment doesn't mention illegal aliens. Try again

Either you are a damn liar (likely) or unable to comprehend the written word. Hint: Read the last part which begins, "; nor shall any State deprive ANY PERSON of life, liberty or property without due process of law ...".

Don't try to spin this to not include the Federal Government, since the 9th and 10th articles in the Bill of Rights support this statement and my post.

We the people have that right, yes. Someone here illegally isnt a we