Massachusetts town going to vote on our rights.

[asaratis]

Just as we cannot simply pass a law banning guns and expect the criminals to turn in all firearms, we cannot simply pass a law banning cursing and expect all "bad words" to disappear from our daily lives.

Morality cannot be legislated.

If those idiots in Massachusetts expect me to abide by their silly law...fuck 'em!...and I will NOT pay the $20 fine! Fuck that too!

 

[asaratis]

DNA technology is advancing so fast that in a few years people will likely be able to abort gay babies if they want to. That should solve a lot of the Gay Marriage argument.

Except, no one is born a fag. But, there may be some genetic traits which may predispose someone to being a fag, like having a small dick.

Oh yes, people would abort the shit out of fag babies, if possible. Even liberals don't want children who are fags. And, conservatives know that God's own law calls for fags to be killed, and abortion would be a legal way to do it.

I have heard that gay guys have bigger tools. I do know that porn stars do.

You, by the way are a simpleton.

 

[Nosmo King]

Wait, I thought "conservatives" were in favour of the public voting and passing any law.

Funny how that changes when it's something you don't like.

Try being for the constitution, you ignorant fuck

You know.. that thing that upholds rights, prevents tyranny of the masses, and protects against an overpowering government by strictly limiting the specific powers it is granted..

Vote on or pass legislation on all the laws you won't that do not violate the rights given in the constitution.. Hell, if Mass wants to pass a law about dogs being required to wear muzzles when walked, or wants to pass a law fining people who wipe boogers on the seats of public buses, so be it.. but this is a direct violation of free speech and is a horrible precedent to set

What about a law banning the burning of an American flag? Is that a direct violation of free speech?

 

[Clementine]

Wait, I thought "conservatives" were in favour of the public voting and passing any law.

Funny how that changes when it's something you don't like.

Not a matter of what a person likes or not. It's a matter of what is a right or not. I highly disagree with what many people say, but will never trample on their right to say it.

Laws and policies must always be constitutional and never against our rights. The left still doesn't get why the majority believe Obamacare should be repealed. Even some that like it say it's unconsitutional and needs to go.

 

[Clementine]

Wait, I thought "conservatives" were in favour of the public voting and passing any law.

Funny how that changes when it's something you don't like.

Not a matter of what a person likes or not. It's a matter of what is a right or not. I highly disagree with what many people say, but will never trample on their right to say it.

Laws and policies must always be constitutional and never against our rights. The left still doesn't get why the majority believe Obamacare should be repealed. Even some that like it say it's unconsitutional and needs to go.

 

[DiamondDave]

Wait, I thought "conservatives" were in favour of the public voting and passing any law.

Funny how that changes when it's something you don't like.

Try being for the constitution, you ignorant fuck

You know.. that thing that upholds rights, prevents tyranny of the masses, and protects against an overpowering government by strictly limiting the specific powers it is granted..

Vote on or pass legislation on all the laws you won't that do not violate the rights given in the constitution.. Hell, if Mass wants to pass a law about dogs being required to wear muzzles when walked, or wants to pass a law fining people who wipe boogers on the seats of public buses, so be it.. but this is a direct violation of free speech and is a horrible precedent to set

What about a law banning the burning of an American flag? Is that a direct violation of free speech?

I detest it... but I have not supported a law banning it

Fair enough?

 

[DontBeStupid]

Wait, I thought "conservatives" were in favour of the public voting and passing any law.

Funny how that changes when it's something you don't like.

Try being for the constitution, you ignorant fuck

You know.. that thing that upholds rights, prevents tyranny of the masses, and protects against an overpowering government by strictly limiting the specific powers it is granted..

Vote on or pass legislation on all the laws you won't that do not violate the rights given in the constitution.. Hell, if Mass wants to pass a law about dogs being required to wear muzzles when walked, or wants to pass a law fining people who wipe boogers on the seats of public buses, so be it.. but this is a direct violation of free speech and is a horrible precedent to set

That was my point Dave. You're complaining about a possible law that would be passed by voter consent because it might violate the 1st Amendment. Yet, you cheer a law that was passed by voter consent that violates the 14th Amendment.

I understand you're not being hypocritical. I understand you clearly just don't care about others rights, so long as it bans something you don't like.

 

[DontBeStupid]

Wait, I thought "conservatives" were in favour of the public voting and passing any law.

Funny how that changes when it's something you don't like.

Not a matter of what a person likes or not. It's a matter of what is a right or not. I highly disagree with what many people say, but will never trample on their right to say it.

Laws and policies must always be constitutional and never against our rights. The left still doesn't get why the majority believe Obamacare should be repealed. Even some that like it say it's unconsitutional and needs to go.

We understand why you want Obamacare gone. We just don't agree with you.

My point with this is that Law A gets passed, violating the 14th Amendment and "conservatives" don't care. They cheer it in fact. Law B is proposed that if passed would violate the 1st Amendment, and "conservatives" scream and cry about violating their rights.

I understand that "conservatives" support banning things they don't like, but do you realize how inconsistent your position looks? We liberals on the left are against both laws because both violate rights protect by the Constitution.

 

[bitterlyclingin]

Just wait'll folks discard the rolled, wet tatami mats in favor of the real thing.

 

[asterism]

Wait, I thought "conservatives" were in favour of the public voting and passing any law.

Funny how that changes when it's something you don't like.

Not a matter of what a person likes or not. It's a matter of what is a right or not. I highly disagree with what many people say, but will never trample on their right to say it.

Laws and policies must always be constitutional and never against our rights. The left still doesn't get why the majority believe Obamacare should be repealed. Even some that like it say it's unconsitutional and needs to go.

We understand why you want Obamacare gone. We just don't agree with you.

My point with this is that Law A gets passed, violating the 14th Amendment and "conservatives" don't care. They cheer it in fact. Law B is proposed that if passed would violate the 1st Amendment, and "conservatives" scream and cry about violating their rights.

I understand that "conservatives" support banning things they don't like, but do you realize how inconsistent your position looks? We liberals on the left are against both laws because both violate rights protect by the Constitution.

You can't broadbrush like that. Liberals are all in favor of trampling on the Constitution in cases of namecalling and owning guns.

 

[asaratis]

Not a matter of what a person likes or not. It's a matter of what is a right or not. I highly disagree with what many people say, but will never trample on their right to say it.

Laws and policies must always be constitutional and never against our rights. The left still doesn't get why the majority believe Obamacare should be repealed. Even some that like it say it's unconsitutional and needs to go.

We understand why you want Obamacare gone. We just don't agree with you.

My point with this is that Law A gets passed, violating the 14th Amendment and "conservatives" don't care. They cheer it in fact. Law B is proposed that if passed would violate the 1st Amendment, and "conservatives" scream and cry about violating their rights.

I understand that "conservatives" support banning things they don't like, but do you realize how inconsistent your position looks? We liberals on the left are against both laws because both violate rights protect by the Constitution.

You can't broadbrush like that. Liberals are all in favor of trampling on the Constitution in cases of namecalling and owning guns.

Oh, so YOU can broadbrush, but he can't?

 

[asterism]

We understand why you want Obamacare gone. We just don't agree with you.

My point with this is that Law A gets passed, violating the 14th Amendment and "conservatives" don't care. They cheer it in fact. Law B is proposed that if passed would violate the 1st Amendment, and "conservatives" scream and cry about violating their rights.

I understand that "conservatives" support banning things they don't like, but do you realize how inconsistent your position looks? We liberals on the left are against both laws because both violate rights protect by the Constitution.

You can't broadbrush like that. Liberals are all in favor of trampling on the Constitution in cases of namecalling and owning guns.

Oh, so YOU can broadbrush, but he can't?

Of course. I'm an equal opportunity broadbrusher when it comes to politicians trampling on the Constitution.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Not surprised this is coming out of Mass, I'm actually surprised it's not California. I dont see this law being upheld even if it passes a vote. It's a free speech violation.

Wait, I thought "conservatives" were in favour of the public voting and passing any law.

Funny how that changes when it's something you don't like.

Try being for the constitution, you ignorant fuck

You know.. that thing that upholds rights, prevents tyranny of the masses, and protects against an overpowering government by strictly limiting the specific powers it is granted..

Vote on or pass legislation on all the laws you won't that do not violate the rights given in the constitution.. Hell, if Mass wants to pass a law about dogs being required to wear muzzles when walked, or wants to pass a law fining people who wipe boogers on the seats of public buses, so be it.. but this is a direct violation of free speech and is a horrible precedent to set

Um, no. Obscenity isn’t protected speech. See: Roth v. United States (1957). The courts have allowed jurisdictions to ban obscene speech based upon ‘local standards,’ no potential harm need be present, and the state is not required to demonstrate a compelling reason to ban obscenity.

 

[ladyliberal]

Not surprised this is coming out of Mass, I'm actually surprised it's not California. I dont see this law being upheld even if it passes a vote. It's a free speech violation.

Wait, I thought "conservatives" were in favour of the public voting and passing any law.

Funny how that changes when it's something you don't like.

Try being for the constitution, you ignorant fuck

You know.. that thing that upholds rights, prevents tyranny of the masses, and protects against an overpowering government by strictly limiting the specific powers it is granted..

Vote on or pass legislation on all the laws you won't that do not violate the rights given in the constitution.. Hell, if Mass wants to pass a law about dogs being required to wear muzzles when walked, or wants to pass a law fining people who wipe boogers on the seats of public buses, so be it.. but this is a direct violation of free speech and is a horrible precedent to set

Um, no. Obscenity isn’t protected speech. See: Roth v. United States (1957). The courts have allowed jurisdictions to ban obscene speech based upon ‘local standards,’ no potential harm need be present, and the state is not required to demonstrate a compelling reason to ban obscenity.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe Miller v. California supersedes Roth. In any case, the Miller standard is even stricter against profanity, allowing local authorities to ban expression based on local community standards. My understanding is that under the Miller standard municipalities could ban profanity in certain contexts but not in others. A few examples indicate that there are no guarantees that a first amendment challenge to obscenity laws will succeed (Curses! Blasphemy, profanity laws still on the books | First Amendment Center).

 

[Katzndogz]

The city can do this and it does not violate the First Amendment which is a limitation on Congress, not on cities.

 

[NeoTemplar]

Pardon my french but this law is Bullshit so fuck it

Now that ive got my point across how are they going to stop people from using pejorative expletives even if they do pass this unconstitutional law, when its part of their natural social behavior and ability to freely express what their feeling in words?

Swearing and cursing are modes of speech existing in all human languages. They perform certain social and psychological functions, and utilize particular linguistic and neurological mechanisms; all these are avenues of research

The uniquely human facility for
swearing evolved and persists because taboo words can communicate emotion
information (anger, frustration) more readily than nontaboo words, allowing speakers to
achieve a variety of personal and social goals with them

 

[AmericanFirst]

Wait, I thought "conservatives" were in favour of the public voting and passing any law.

Funny how that changes when it's something you don't like.

Try being for the constitution, you ignorant fuck

You know.. that thing that upholds rights, prevents tyranny of the masses, and protects against an overpowering government by strictly limiting the specific powers it is granted..

Vote on or pass legislation on all the laws you won't that do not violate the rights given in the constitution.. Hell, if Mass wants to pass a law about dogs being required to wear muzzles when walked, or wants to pass a law fining people who wipe boogers on the seats of public buses, so be it.. but this is a direct violation of free speech and is a horrible precedent to set

so you agree we shouldn't be voting on rights....

like my right to reproductive choice...

or to use contraceptives...

or for my gay friends to get married...

cool.

Proplem is, not even a woman should have the right to murder a child. That is a excuse for sluts to have sex and not feel guilty, to put it bluntly.

 

[DontBeStupid]

Try being for the constitution, you ignorant fuck

You know.. that thing that upholds rights, prevents tyranny of the masses, and protects against an overpowering government by strictly limiting the specific powers it is granted..

Vote on or pass legislation on all the laws you won't that do not violate the rights given in the constitution.. Hell, if Mass wants to pass a law about dogs being required to wear muzzles when walked, or wants to pass a law fining people who wipe boogers on the seats of public buses, so be it.. but this is a direct violation of free speech and is a horrible precedent to set

so you agree we shouldn't be voting on rights....

like my right to reproductive choice...

or to use contraceptives...

or for my gay friends to get married...

cool.

Proplem is, not even a woman should have the right to murder a child. That is a excuse for sluts to have sex and not feel guilty, to put it bluntly.

You're an idiot. For a variety of reasons.

 

[Ariux]

Proplem is, not even a woman should have the right to murder a child. That is a excuse for sluts to have sex and not feel guilty, to put it bluntly.

You're an idiot. For a variety of reasons.

Name three.

 

[chanel]

It's about money. It's almost always about money.

I hear the "f word" at least 20 times a day. It's annoying, but I don't think people should be ticketed for being annoying.