ACLU Defends MILO and the Usual Libtard Suspects Attack The ACLU for Defending Free Speech

[JimBowie1958]

This is so freaking stupid, you just cant make it up.

Reality is stranger than fiction.

Liberals Attack ACLU for Defending Milo Yiannopoulos’ Right to Free Speech

The American Civil Liberties Union is being slammed defending the right of Milo Yiannopoulos to free speech.

Posting on Twitter, the ACLU account signal boosted the tweets of one of its lawyers, Lee Rowland, who said it was important to protect speech—even speech we personally disagree with—to prevent the First Amendment from devolving into a popularity contest.

Both the official ACLU Twitter account and Rowland were mobbed by outraged social justice warriors who told them they were wrong to defend his basic rights.

Their arguments were replete with hyperbole denouncing him as some kind of homosexual Nazi whose words will usher in a very gay and very fabulous Fourth Reich. The hysteria couldn’t, of course, be farther from the truth.​

 

[bodecea]

Free speech...absolutely. Those who rioted in Berkeley were wrong....

 

[Pogo]

This is so freaking stupid, you just cant make it up.

Reality is stranger than fiction.

Liberals Attack ACLU for Defending Milo Yiannopoulos’ Right to Free Speech

The American Civil Liberties Union is being slammed defending the right of Milo Yiannopoulos to free speech.

Posting on Twitter, the ACLU account signal boosted the tweets of one of its lawyers, Lee Rowland, who said it was important to protect speech—even speech we personally disagree with—to prevent the First Amendment from devolving into a popularity contest.

Both the official ACLU Twitter account and Rowland were mobbed by outraged social justice warriors who told them they were wrong to defend his basic rights.

Their arguments were replete with hyperbole denouncing him as some kind of homosexual Nazi whose words will usher in a very gay and very fabulous Fourth Reich. The hysteria couldn’t, of course, be farther from the truth.​

Oh FUCKING BULLSHIT. You swallow all your headlines whole, moron? Where does it prove the blowback came from "Liberals"? Hm?

If ACLU defended the Constitution --- which is what it always does --- and somebody attacks ACLU for it, then by definition they can't be Liberals.

 

[depotoo]

Actually Milo shamed the ACLU to take up his case. I guess it finally worked.

 

[saveliberty]

Free speech...absolutely. Those who rioted in Berkeley were wrong....

What the riot wasn't big enough or just not a higher level of violence?

 

[saveliberty]

This is so freaking stupid, you just cant make it up.

Reality is stranger than fiction.

Liberals Attack ACLU for Defending Milo Yiannopoulos’ Right to Free Speech

The American Civil Liberties Union is being slammed defending the right of Milo Yiannopoulos to free speech.

Posting on Twitter, the ACLU account signal boosted the tweets of one of its lawyers, Lee Rowland, who said it was important to protect speech—even speech we personally disagree with—to prevent the First Amendment from devolving into a popularity contest.

Both the official ACLU Twitter account and Rowland were mobbed by outraged social justice warriors who told them they were wrong to defend his basic rights.

Their arguments were replete with hyperbole denouncing him as some kind of homosexual Nazi whose words will usher in a very gay and very fabulous Fourth Reich. The hysteria couldn’t, of course, be farther from the truth.​

Oh FUCKING BULLSHIT. You swallow all your headlines whole, moron? Where does it prove the blowback came from "Liberals"? Hm?

If ACLU defended the Constitution --- which is what it always does --- and somebody attacks ACLU for it, then by definition they can't be Liberals.

Probably anarchists disguised as liberals, is that your spin Pogo?

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

This is so freaking stupid, you just cant make it up.

Reality is stranger than fiction.

Liberals Attack ACLU for Defending Milo Yiannopoulos’ Right to Free Speech

The American Civil Liberties Union is being slammed defending the right of Milo Yiannopoulos to free speech.

Posting on Twitter, the ACLU account signal boosted the tweets of one of its lawyers, Lee Rowland, who said it was important to protect speech—even speech we personally disagree with—to prevent the First Amendment from devolving into a popularity contest.

Both the official ACLU Twitter account and Rowland were mobbed by outraged social justice warriors who told them they were wrong to defend his basic rights.

Their arguments were replete with hyperbole denouncing him as some kind of homosexual Nazi whose words will usher in a very gay and very fabulous Fourth Reich. The hysteria couldn’t, of course, be farther from the truth.​

Looks like they are devouring each other now.

 

[Pogo]

This is so freaking stupid, you just cant make it up.

Reality is stranger than fiction.

Liberals Attack ACLU for Defending Milo Yiannopoulos’ Right to Free Speech

The American Civil Liberties Union is being slammed defending the right of Milo Yiannopoulos to free speech.

Posting on Twitter, the ACLU account signal boosted the tweets of one of its lawyers, Lee Rowland, who said it was important to protect speech—even speech we personally disagree with—to prevent the First Amendment from devolving into a popularity contest.

Both the official ACLU Twitter account and Rowland were mobbed by outraged social justice warriors who told them they were wrong to defend his basic rights.

Their arguments were replete with hyperbole denouncing him as some kind of homosexual Nazi whose words will usher in a very gay and very fabulous Fourth Reich. The hysteria couldn’t, of course, be farther from the truth.​

Oh FUCKING BULLSHIT. You swallow all your headlines whole, moron? Where does it prove the blowback came from "Liberals"? Hm?

If ACLU defended the Constitution --- which is what it always does --- and somebody attacks ACLU for it, then by definition they can't be Liberals.

Probably anarchists disguised as liberals, is that your spin Pogo?

I don't have a "spin". Again, just like the last thread, the OP and his article make a claim they can't back up. And I've demonstrated why the premise is inoperative.

I'd also like him to essplain what he means by "the usual libtard suspects". I wonder if he claims to personally know the tweeters cited. How else would he know they're "usual"?

He won't answer that though.

 

[saveliberty]

I don't have a "spin". Again, just like the last thread, the OP and his article make a claim they can't back up. And I've demonstrated why the premise is inoperative.

I'd also like him to essplain what he means by "the usual libtard suspects". I wonder if he claims to personally know the tweeters cited. How else would he know they're "usual"?

He won't answer that though.

For your own benefit there is this theory that if it walks, talks and generally acts like a duck, it is probably a duck. You haven't demonstrated dick Pogo. It is simply an avoidance of the obvious, because it doesn't fit your narrative of reality.

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

I don't have a "spin". Again, just like the last thread, the OP and his article make a claim they can't back up. And I've demonstrated why the premise is inoperative.

I'd also like him to essplain what he means by "the usual libtard suspects". I wonder if he claims to personally know the tweeters cited. How else would he know they're "usual"?

He won't answer that though.

For your own benefit there is this theory that if it walks, talks and generally acts like a duck, it is probably a duck. You haven't demonstrated dick Pogo. It is simply an avoidance of the obvious, because it doesn't fit your narrative of reality.

I like the duck analogy. It has always worked for me.

 

[saveliberty]

I like the duck analogy. It has always worked for me.

Meow. er...quack.

 

[Pogo]

I don't have a "spin". Again, just like the last thread, the OP and his article make a claim they can't back up. And I've demonstrated why the premise is inoperative.

I'd also like him to essplain what he means by "the usual libtard suspects". I wonder if he claims to personally know the tweeters cited. How else would he know they're "usual"?

He won't answer that though.

For your own benefit there is this theory that if it walks, talks and generally acts like a duck, it is probably a duck. You haven't demonstrated dick Pogo. It is simply an avoidance of the obvious, because it doesn't fit your narrative of reality.

Again with the "probability" theories, this time based on a term neither you nor the OP apparently understands.

Liberalism WROTE the Constitution. The entire concept of "Free Speech" is Liberalism. You cannot, by definition, be a Liberal and an anti-Liberal at the same time. THINK about it. They're the opposite of each other



Notice if you will the OP says nothing about "probabilities". Does it say "ACLU got slammed and it's probably Liberals"? No it does not --- it comes out with the flat declaration that not only are they what he calls "libtards" but they're "the usual suspects", as if he already knows them.

NOTHING in that is about "probabilities" so take your spin and cram it up your laundromat.

Notice another similarity with the other thread. Here too the OP has nothing to say in his own defense.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Again with the "probability" theories, this time based on a term neither you nor the OP apparently understands.

Liberalism WROTE the Constitution. The entire concept of "Free Speech" is Liberalism. You cannot, by definition, be a Liberal and an anti-Liberal at the same time. THINK about it.

roflmao, pogo, give up that spin bullshit, mmk?

Not one of the signers of the DoI would be a liberal Democrat today, particularly Thomas Jefferson.

 

[saveliberty]

I don't have a "spin". Again, just like the last thread, the OP and his article make a claim they can't back up. And I've demonstrated why the premise is inoperative.

I'd also like him to essplain what he means by "the usual libtard suspects". I wonder if he claims to personally know the tweeters cited. How else would he know they're "usual"?

He won't answer that though.

For your own benefit there is this theory that if it walks, talks and generally acts like a duck, it is probably a duck. You haven't demonstrated dick Pogo. It is simply an avoidance of the obvious, because it doesn't fit your narrative of reality.

Again with the "probability" theories, this time based on a term neither you nor the OP apparently understands.

Liberalism WROTE the Constitution. The entire concept of "Free Speech" is Liberalism. You cannot, by definition, be a Liberal and an anti-Liberal at the same time. THINK about it.

You can if you become blinded by socialism and accept fascism as a means to your end.

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

I like the duck analogy. It has always worked for me.

Meow. er...quack.

I love my bulls but the most magnificent creature God ever created was the cat! We have two wonderful cats and you cannot beat the personality of a cat! They are purrr-fecto!

 

[Pogo]

Again with the "probability" theories, this time based on a term neither you nor the OP apparently understands.

Liberalism WROTE the Constitution. The entire concept of "Free Speech" is Liberalism. You cannot, by definition, be a Liberal and an anti-Liberal at the same time. THINK about it.

roflmao, pogo, give up that spin bullshit, mmk?

Not one of the signers of the DoI would be a liberal Democrat today, particularly Thomas Jefferson.

Finally he crawls out, attempts coherent speech!

Where did I say anything about "Democrats", moron?

See what I mean about having no clue what the fuck you're talking about?

>>Liberalism first became a distinct political movement during the Age of Enlightenment, when it became popular among philosophers and economists in the Western world. Liberalism rejected the prevailing social and political norms of hereditary privilege, state religion, absolute monarchy, and the Divine Right of Kings. The 17th-century philosopher John Locke is often credited with founding liberalism as a distinct philosophical tradition. Locke argued that each man has a natural right to life, liberty and property,[12] while adding that governments must not violate these rights based on the social contract. Liberals opposed traditional conservatism and sought to replace absolutism in government with representative democracy and the rule of law. << (Wiki)​

Now then.

Care to tell us where you know these "usual suspects" from?

 

[MarathonMike]

I don't have a "spin". Again, just like the last thread, the OP and his article make a claim they can't back up. And I've demonstrated why the premise is inoperative.

I'd also like him to essplain what he means by "the usual libtard suspects". I wonder if he claims to personally know the tweeters cited. How else would he know they're "usual"?

He won't answer that though.

For your own benefit there is this theory that if it walks, talks and generally acts like a duck, it is probably a duck. You haven't demonstrated dick Pogo. It is simply an avoidance of the obvious, because it doesn't fit your narrative of reality.

Again with the "probability" theories, this time based on a term neither you nor the OP apparently understands.

Liberalism WROTE the Constitution. The entire concept of "Free Speech" is Liberalism. You cannot, by definition, be a Liberal and an anti-Liberal at the same time. THINK about it. They're the opposite of each other



Notice if you will the OP says nothing about "probabilities". Does it say "ACLU got slammed and it's probably Liberals"? No it does not --- it comes out with the flat declaration that not only are they what he calls "libtards" but they're "the usual suspects", as if he already knows them.

NOTHING in that is about "probabilities" so take your spin and cram it up your laundromat.

Notice another similarity with the other thread. Here too the OP has nothing to say in his own defense.

There is absolutely no similarity between the history of Liberalism and what passes for Liberalism today. You say "The entire concept of Free Speech is Liberalism." Sure, as long as you are parroting the Democratic Party Line, you are free to speak. Deviate from that, and the "Free Speech" lovers will burn your cars, pepper spray you in the face, beat you senseless and target you with death threats.

 

[Pogo]

I don't have a "spin". Again, just like the last thread, the OP and his article make a claim they can't back up. And I've demonstrated why the premise is inoperative.

I'd also like him to essplain what he means by "the usual libtard suspects". I wonder if he claims to personally know the tweeters cited. How else would he know they're "usual"?

He won't answer that though.

For your own benefit there is this theory that if it walks, talks and generally acts like a duck, it is probably a duck. You haven't demonstrated dick Pogo. It is simply an avoidance of the obvious, because it doesn't fit your narrative of reality.

Again with the "probability" theories, this time based on a term neither you nor the OP apparently understands.

Liberalism WROTE the Constitution. The entire concept of "Free Speech" is Liberalism. You cannot, by definition, be a Liberal and an anti-Liberal at the same time. THINK about it.

You can if you become blinded by socialism and accept fascism as a means to your end.

I don't do Doublethink, comrade. You can't be a fascist and a Liberal at the same time either. Dites pas les bêtises.

 

[saveliberty]

Finally he crawls out, attempts coherent speech!

Where did I say anything about "Democrats", moron?

See what I mean about having no clue what the fuck you're talking about?

>>
Liberalism first became a distinct political movement during the Age of Enlightenment, when it became popular among philosophers and economists in the Western world. Liberalism rejected the prevailing social and political norms of hereditary privilege, state religion, absolute monarchy, and the Divine Right of Kings. The 17th-century philosopher John Locke is often credited with founding liberalism as a distinct philosophical tradition. Locke argued that each man has a natural right to life, liberty and property,[12] while adding that governments must not violate these rights based on the social contract. Liberals opposed traditional conservatism and sought to replace absolutism in government with representative democracy and the rule of law.

Prominent revolutionaries in the Glorious Revolution, the American Revolution, and the French Revolution used liberal philosophy to justify the armed overthrow of what they saw as tyrannical rule. << (Wiki)

Now then.

Care to tell us where you know these "usual suspects" from?

Liberalism was originally a concept based on liberty. Modern day liberals bastardized it into meaning equality, which by definition requires people to give up a certain amount of liberty.

 

[saveliberty]

I don't do Doublethink, comrade. You can't be a fascist and a Liberal at the same time either. Dites pas les bêtises.

...and yet here you are doing just that.