Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
This article is for all of you ignorant liberal Dumbocrats out there who keep excusing muslim violence and supporting oppression of free speech under the ultra ignorant "fire in a movie theatre" theory... These are actual Supreme Court cases. Why don't you people read and actually learn something for once.
Cain: The First Amendment Doesnt Care If Muslims Are Offended | TheBlaze.com
My question is why do liberals who HATE religion, always back up muslims, who treat women, gays, minorities like shit......I know why....but I find it interesting that noone ever asks them
This article is for all of you ignorant liberal Dumbocrats out there who keep excusing muslim violence and supporting oppression of free speech under the ultra ignorant "fire in a movie theatre" theory... These are actual Supreme Court cases. Why don't you people read and actually learn something for once.
Cain: The First Amendment Doesnt Care If Muslims Are Offended | TheBlaze.com
This article is for all of you ignorant liberal Dumbocrats out there who keep excusing muslim violence and supporting oppression of free speech under the ultra ignorant "fire in a movie theatre" theory... These are actual Supreme Court cases. Why don't you people read and actually learn something for once.
Cain: The First Amendment Doesnt Care If Muslims Are Offended | TheBlaze.com
Please cite a time and place where we have done this??Americans have fought and died around the globe to protect the right of all people to express their views, even views that we profoundly disagree with.
Given this supposed “minister’s” role in last year’s riots in Afghanistan, where people died, and given his apparent or his alleged role in this film, where, not yet nailed down, but at least one American, perhaps the American ambassador is dead, it might be time for the Department of Justice to start viewing his role as an accessory before or after the fact.
If anyone could point out an intermediate and yet a tenable position between the complete independence and the entire servitude of opinion, I should perhaps be inclined to adopt it, but the difficulty is to discover this intermediate position. Intending to correct the licentiousness of the press and to restore the use of orderly language, you first try the offender by a jury; but if the jury acquits him, the opinion which was that of a single individual becomes the opinion of the whole country. Too much and too little has therefore been done; go farther, then. You bring the delinquent before permanent magistrates; but even here the cause must be heard before it can be decided; and the very principles which no book would have ventured to avow are blazoned forth in the pleadings, and what was obscurely hinted at in a single composition is thus repeated in a multitude of other publications. The language is only the expression and, if I may so speak, the body of the thought, but it is not the thought itself. Tribunals may condemn the body, but the sense, the spirit of the work is too subtle for their authority. Too much has still been done to recede, too little to attain your end; you must go still farther. Establish a censorship of the press. But the tongue of the public speaker will still make itself heard, and your purpose is not yet accomplished; you have only increased the mischief. Thought is not, like physical strength, dependent upon the number of its agents; nor can authors be counted like the troops that compose an army. On the contrary, the authority of a principle is often increased by the small number of men by whom it is expressed. The words of one strong-minded man addressed to the passions of a listening assembly have more power than the vociferations of a thousand orators; and if it be allowed to speak freely in any one public place, the consequence is the same as if free speaking was allowed in every village. The liberty of speech must therefore be destroyed as well as the liberty of the press. And now you have succeeded, everybody is reduced to silence. But your object was to repress the abuses of liberty, and you are brought to the feet of a despot. You have been led from the extreme of independence to the extreme of servitude without finding a single tenable position on the way at which you could stop.
Please cite a time and place where we have done this??Americans have fought and died around the globe to protect the right of all people to express their views, even views that we profoundly disagree with.
So we went to war with Japan in order to protect the "rights" of the Japanese citizens to express their views?Please cite a time and place where we have done this??Americans have fought and died around the globe to protect the right of all people to express their views, even views that we profoundly disagree with.
Japan 1941-1945.
Article 29 of the their constitution.
Please cite a time and place where we have done this??Americans have fought and died around the globe to protect the right of all people to express their views, even views that we profoundly disagree with.
Japan 1941-1945.
Article 29 of the their constitution.
So we went to war with Japan in order to protect the "rights" of the Japanese citizens to express their views?Please cite a time and place where we have done this??
Japan 1941-1945.
Article 29 of the their constitution.
Silly me; I thought it was about Pearl Harbor........
btw Article 29 was written after the war.
Why do you keep claiming that without naming some liberal names who back up muslim extremist?
Please cite a time and place where we have done this??
Japan 1941-1945.
Article 29 of the their constitution.
Now, that you brought up Japan, maybe George W. Bush should have done after 9/11 what the idol and virtual GOD of Democrats, Franklin D. Roosevelt did after Pearl Harbor.
Sadly, instead, he made the statement that will surely go down in history as the most uninformed and idiotic statement EVER uttered by an otherwise normal and decent politician: "Islam is a religion of peace".
Yes, Islam is the religion of peace; but muslims don't take nonsense from anyone.
Why do you keep claiming that without naming some liberal names who back up muslim extremist?
Seriously? They have to do that for you? I agree with you on one thing, you are blind...
Yes, Islam is the religion of peace; but muslims don't take nonsense from anyone.
Why do you keep claiming that without naming some liberal names who back up muslim extremist?
Seriously? They have to do that for you? I agree with you on one thing, you are blind...
I'll bet for every one name, I could find hundred or more who do not back up Mulsim Extremist. Do you think Maher is a liberal? If there are any liberals who support muslim extremist on this board please speak up!
