Nazi...err...Democrat(NH), wants 2 restrict freedoms for Conservatives & Libertarians

[Sallow]

Hard to tell anything here..since the source is Briebart.

No doubt that the context is totally out of whack.

 

[Cecilie1200]

So its perfectly permissable for Ann Coulter to demand lists of women who have had abortions and make them public BUT when anyone proposes to restrict the freedoms of conservatives/libertarians, they're labelled as mentally ill and or a Nazi!

If infringing on the rights of the individual is the OP's complaint, that makes Coulture the Queen of Fascism!

She didn't "demand" anything, shitforbrains. She made an analogy: if someone thinks it's okay to publish lists of gun owners, would it be okay to publish lists of abortion patients?

Fuck, if you're not going to bother understanding basic English usage, stop trying to communicate in it!

There ya go, trying to confuse a zombie with facts. You would be better served talking to your toaster, at least it will give you something warm and constructive in return.

When the zombie gets confused, and then gets angry, and then its head explodes as it splutters incoherently, THAT gives me a warm fuzzy sensation in my tummy.

 

[Cecilie1200]

So its perfectly permissable for Ann Coulter to demand lists of women who have had abortions and make them public BUT when anyone proposes to restrict the freedoms of conservatives/libertarians, they're labelled as mentally ill and or a Nazi!

If infringing on the rights of the individual is the OP's complaint, that makes Coulture the Queen of Fascism!

She didn't "demand" anything, shitforbrains. She made an analogy: if someone thinks it's okay to publish lists of gun owners, would it be okay to publish lists of abortion patients?

Fuck, if you're not going to bother understanding basic English usage, stop trying to communicate in it!

Um no it would not be okay to do one and not the other. See we have laws protecting the medical privacy of people.There are no laws protecting the privacy of gun ownership.

Argue among yourselves if the law has it right or not, doesn't change the fact that Coulter advocated doing something ILLEGAL in response to something that was LEGAL.

She didn't "advocate" anything. What part of the word "analogy" is confusing to you people? I know, I know, ALL you can think about is "legal". Legal, legal, legal, there's a law, that's all that matters. Right and wrong? What the fuck are THOSE? LEGAL! That's the same as "right", isn't it?

That "whooshing" sound is the fucking point going over your head.

 

[Katzndogz]

If the people in a state want to get together to restrict the rights and freedoms of a group of people why not? One state could have total gun control, another could ban gays from living there. One state could mandate abortions without a permit to have a child, another could ban abortion completely for any reason. Is there something wrong with this?

 

[AmyNation]

What is a "free stater"?

 

[AmyNation]

Ah ok answered my own question


Free State Project - Liberty in Our Lifetime

I'm not sure how I'd feel about 20 thousand people moving in to my state with the sole purpose of turning it into what their political utopia is.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

It's only a matter of time before it becomes a real shooting war

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Full text of the blog post:

Free Staters Unwelcome Here
In the opinion of this Democrat, Free Staters are the single biggest threat the state is facing today. There is, legally, nothing we can do to prevent them from moving here to take over the state, which is their openly stated goal. In this country you can move anywhere you choose and they have that same right. What we can do is to make the environment here so unwelcoming that some will choose not to come, and some may actually leave. One way is to pass measures that will restrict the "freedoms" that they think they will find here. Another is to shine the bright light of publicity on who they are and why they are coming. They can not put their ideology into our statutes unless we elect them in great enough numbers to take over our General Court. We have already seen them try during the last session of the General Court. Our last election was a repudiation of their extremism.

Here in Keene we had a couple show up on Central Square to take part in our weekly Saturday morning peace demonstration. In the course of the conversation they allowed that they were Free Staters considering moving to Keene. The folks on the Square told them in no uncertain terms not to do that because Free Staters are not welcome here. Cheshire County is a welcoming community but not to those whose stated goal is to move in enough ideologues to steal our state, and our way of life.

Ultimately the Free Staters want NH to be a platform state for them to export their views to the rest of the country. Some of these folks dress up pretty well, but if you check their website you will find that they are really wolves in sheep's clothing. The best strategy from my perspective is to keep shining a light on their views and activities and make it very plain that NH is not up for sale to any ideology. To ignore these people and hope they go away is a recipe for disaster.

"It is true that the law can't change the heart, but it can restrain the heartless." Martin Luther King

Unless the OP can cite specific laws proposed by the lawmaker “to restrict freedoms for anyone who is conservative – libertarian,” there’s no justification for referring to her as a ‘Nazi.’

When she notes: “One way is to pass measures that will restrict the "freedoms" that they think they will find here,” unless knowing what specifically those measures are, there’s no way to infer she’s advocating civil liberties be restricted. For example, NH may have relatively favorable tax laws, changing those laws to make them less favorable – and therefore make it less likely people will move to NH – is in no way a violation of anyone’s civil liberties, nor an attempt “to restrict freedoms for anyone who is conservative – libertarian.”

Again, when the OP has specific examples of what laws Cynthia Chase proposes, this thread is nothing more than subjective partisan hyperbole and whining.

 

[Si modo]

So its perfectly permissable for Ann Coulter to demand lists of women who have had abortions and make them public BUT when anyone proposes to restrict the freedoms of conservatives/libertarians, they're labelled as mentally ill and or a Nazi!

If infringing on the rights of the individual is the OP's complaint, that makes Coulture the Queen of Fascism!

Ann Coulter makes law?

Who knew?

 

[Harry Dresden]

Nazi...errrrr...Democrat, Cynthia Chase while yelling "Seig Heil" to the multiple Hitler posters on the walls of her houses came up with legislation to restrict freedoms for anyone who is conservative - libertarian. You know, the more I listen to Rush, the more he is correct. I remember over a year ago, he stated that mentally ill people who worship Hitler like Chase does, they consider Americans with any opposing views to be the biggest threat to the nation. I truly believe Chase would support rounding up anyone who disagrees with it...I mean her...into concentration camps and having them gassed or put into ovens...afterall, her idol, Hitler did the same thing.


New Hampshire Legislator: We Need to 'Restrict Freedoms' of Conservatives

Locke....there are many Conservatives in this State who feel the Far Lefties here and those moving here over the Decades have fucked this State up and they would love to see them move out of here too.....so it may work both ways.....

 

[Si modo]

Your avatar is just wrong, Harry.

 

[AmyNation]

They choose NH, because of its low tax rates, low crime rates, and the fact that their local reps haven't asked for a raise in 100 years, among other things. Apparently they took a vote and everything.

 

[Cecilie1200]

If the people in a state want to get together to restrict the rights and freedoms of a group of people why not? One state could have total gun control, another could ban gays from living there. One state could mandate abortions without a permit to have a child, another could ban abortion completely for any reason. Is there something wrong with this?

Wrong? Yes, that would be very wrong. Legal? I guess that would depend on the laws of the state. But it's very important to guard against the careless conflation of what a government CAN do, and what a government SHOULD do.

 

[Cecilie1200]

What is a "free stater"?

Didn't you read the article? It explained where the nickname came from, and everything.

 

[GuyPinestra]

Imagine if a legislator had written a blog post targeting the freedoms of gays, or women, or some other minority? One would think that the media would go wild with such a story. But here we have an elected official suggesting that government be used in the United States of America to eliminate freedoms for certain citizens in order to gain political control and the media is silent.

Sounds like tyranny, indeed.

The howl from the Left would be DEAFENING!

 

[WillowTree]

where duz demoncraps find all day preety wimmens?

 

[CaféAuLait]

Hard to tell anything here..since the source is Briebart.

No doubt that the context is totally out of whack.

The source is her post and here it is and directly linked to in the Briebart piece:

In the opinion of this Democrat, Free Staters are the single biggest threat the state is facing today. There is, legally, nothing we can do to prevent them from moving here to take over the state, which is their openly stated goal. In this country you can move anywhere you choose and they have that same right. What we can do is to make the environment here so unwelcoming that some will choose not to come, and some may actually leave. One way is to pass measures that will restrict the "freedoms" that they think they will find here. Another is to shine the bright light of publicity on who they are and why they are coming. They can not put their ideology into our statutes unless we elect them in great enough numbers to take over our General Court. We have already seen them try during the last session of the General Court. Our last election was a repudiation of their extremism

.


you can read the rest of her post here where she posted it:

Blue Hampshire: Politics : A progressive online community for the Granite State.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Dems are definitely getting in touch with their Inner Mao

 

[AmyNation]

Dems are definitely getting in touch with their Inner Mao

How would you feel, if you discovered that 20 thousand liberals had decided to move in mass to your state with the intent of setting up a big government nanny state utopia?

 

[PoliticalChic]

So its perfectly permissable for Ann Coulter to demand lists of women who have had abortions and make them public BUT when anyone proposes to restrict the freedoms of conservatives/libertarians, they're labelled as mentally ill and or a Nazi!

If infringing on the rights of the individual is the OP's complaint, that makes Coulture the Queen of Fascism!

She didn't "demand" anything, shitforbrains. She made an analogy: if someone thinks it's okay to publish lists of gun owners, would it be okay to publish lists of abortion patients?

Fuck, if you're not going to bother understanding basic English usage, stop trying to communicate in it!

Um no it would not be okay to do one and not the other. See we have laws protecting the medical privacy of people.There are no laws protecting the privacy of gun ownership.

Argue among yourselves if the law has it right or not, doesn't change the fact that Coulter advocated doing something ILLEGAL in response to something that was LEGAL.

So....how do you feel about a Supreme Court Justice who suggested limiting free speech?

Or a President who nominated same?

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? « The Daley Gator