Bill's Wife: The Tasmanian Candidate

[PoliticalChic]

I'll explain the Tasmanian reference in a moment.....



First: Even after encountering it daily, here, at what should be the font of free speech, I still find vast numbers of members who support the totalitarian party, the Democrats


1. To boil that appellation, totalitarian, to its simplest character, it is the Democrat opposition to free speech
Here....a few attacks on free speech by the totalitarian party....

a. The first amendment clearly states "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech,..."
Branding some speech as 'hate speech,' and thereby granting government the right to abridge same, is as anti-American as one can get. Yet, Obama put on the Supreme Court a women who claimed just such a right for government.

b. Democrat/Liberal Icon Lyndon Johnson had just such an abridgment enforced against the religious community. Under LBJ, the law was passed that deprived pastors of their right of free speech....or lose their tax exempt status.
What possible compelling government interest could this represent????


c. And from Obama's Justice Department: "Loretta Lynch Vows to Prosecute Anti-Muslim Speech" Loretta Lynch Vows to Prosecute Anti-Muslim Speech, Calls San Bernardino 'Wonderful Opportunity' - Breitbart


d. "Frank Gaffney on Obama’s Attempt to Slip Irreversible Internet Surrender Under the Radar:
...the impending handover of Internet control to a foreign body
What they’re preparing to do is to cede, or surrender, the last vestige of American control, or even influence, over what is done with critical functions of the Internet. .... the freedom of the Internet – whether it’s the ability of people to communicate freely information on it– or countries, I should say, like Russia, and China, and Saudi Arabia, and Iran, and North Korea – don’t want us to have any say in this..."
Frank Gaffney on Obama's Attempt to Slip Irreversible Internet Surrender Under the Radar: 'We've Got Three Days to Fix This'


e. And here's a peek into the totalitarian-Hillary: Hillary Clinton's campaign has actually told the press what it cannot say in reporting about her: polarizing, calculating, disingenuous, insincere, ambitious, inevitable, entitled, over confident, Secretive, “will do anything to win,” “represents the past” and “out of touch."
Here Are The Words Hillary’s Supporters Won’t Let You Say




2. Had Breitbart or National Review written, in 2008, that electing Obama would have led to legalizing grown men stalking little girls into bathrooms, or pretending to be women, or photographers being forced to attend and memorialize wedding with which they don't agree....or US control of the internet being turned over to communist countries....
...well....the ridicule would have been monumental.

But, here we are....it has come to pass.

In a moment I'll put forth the real world situation that will occur right in the United States if and when the Democrats/Liberals are victorious.

 

[AntonToo]

c. And from Obama's Justice Department: "Loretta Lynch Vows to Prosecute Anti-Muslim Speech"

You have to a be an ignoramus to believe that...which you are, so it totally makes sense.

Hate speech is fully protected right as far as United States government is concerned. What is NOT protected is threats of violence, which is what Loretta Lynch was talking about.

No, there’s no “hate speech” exception to the First Amendment

"Now obviously this is a country that is based on free speech, but when it edges towards violence, when we see the potential for someone lifting that mantle of anti-Muslim rhetoric—or, as we saw after 9/11, violence directed at individuals who may not even be Muslims but perceived to be Muslims, and they will suffer just as much—when we see that we will take action," said Lynch.

 

[Moonglow]

In a moment I'll put forth the real world situation that will occur right in the United States if and when the Democrats/Liberals are victorious.

Go live in North Korea for a year and get back to us on the term, totalitarian party,...

 

[Dale Smith]

c. And from Obama's Justice Department: "Loretta Lynch Vows to Prosecute Anti-Muslim Speech"

You have to a be an ignoramus to believe that...which you are, so it totally makes sense.

Hate speech is fully protected right as far as United States government is concerned. What is NOT protected is threats of violence, which is what Loretta Lynch was talking about.

No, there’s no “hate speech” exception to the First Amendment

"Now obviously this is a country that is based on free speech, but when it edges towards violence, when we see the potential for someone lifting that mantle of anti-Muslim rhetoric—or, as we saw after 9/11, violence directed at individuals who may not even be Muslims but perceived to be Muslims, and they will suffer just as much—when we see that we will take action," said Lynch.

Too funny...... coming from an ignorant leftard POS such as yourself.

 

[PoliticalChic]

c. And from Obama's Justice Department: "Loretta Lynch Vows to Prosecute Anti-Muslim Speech"

You have to a be an ignoramus to believe that...which you are, so it totally makes sense.

Hate speech is fully protected right as far as United States government is concerned. What is NOT protected is threats of violence, which is what Loretta Lynch was talking about.

No, there’s no “hate speech” exception to the First Amendment

"Now obviously this is a country that is based on free speech, but when it edges towards violence, when we see the potential for someone lifting that mantle of anti-Muslim rhetoric—or, as we saw after 9/11, violence directed at individuals who may not even be Muslims but perceived to be Muslims, and they will suffer just as much—when we see that we will take action," said Lynch.

If you can't dispute any of these,....I've proven my case.

a. The first amendment clearly states "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech,..."
Branding some speech as 'hate speech,' and thereby granting government the right to abridge same, is as anti-American as one can get. Yet, Obama put on the Supreme Court a women who claimed just such a right for government.

b. Democrat/Liberal Icon Lyndon Johnson had just such an abridgment enforced against the religious community. Under LBJ, the law was passed that deprived pastors of their right of free speech....or lose their tax exempt status.
What possible compelling government interest could this represent????


c. And from Obama's Justice Department: "Loretta Lynch Vows to Prosecute Anti-Muslim Speech" Loretta Lynch Vows to Prosecute Anti-Muslim Speech, Calls San Bernardino 'Wonderful Opportunity' - Breitbart


d. "Frank Gaffney on Obama’s Attempt to Slip Irreversible Internet Surrender Under the Radar:
...the impending handover of Internet control to a foreign body
What they’re preparing to do is to cede, or surrender, the last vestige of American control, or even influence, over what is done with critical functions of the Internet. .... the freedom of the Internet – whether it’s the ability of people to communicate freely information on it– or countries, I should say, like Russia, and China, and Saudi Arabia, and Iran, and North Korea – don’t want us to have any say in this..."
Frank Gaffney on Obama's Attempt to Slip Irreversible Internet Surrender Under the Radar: 'We've Got Three Days to Fix This'


e. And here's a peek into the totalitarian-Hillary: Hillary Clinton's campaign has actually told the press what it cannot say in reporting about her: polarizing, calculating, disingenuous, insincere, ambitious, inevitable, entitled, over confident, Secretive, “will do anything to win,” “represents the past” and “out of touch."
Here Are The Words Hillary’s Supporters Won’t Let You Say

 

[AntonToo]

c. And from Obama's Justice Department: "Loretta Lynch Vows to Prosecute Anti-Muslim Speech"

You have to a be an ignoramus to believe that...which you are, so it totally makes sense.

Hate speech is fully protected right as far as United States government is concerned. What is NOT protected is threats of violence, which is what Loretta Lynch was talking about.

No, there’s no “hate speech” exception to the First Amendment

"Now obviously this is a country that is based on free speech, but when it edges towards violence, when we see the potential for someone lifting that mantle of anti-Muslim rhetoric—or, as we saw after 9/11, violence directed at individuals who may not even be Muslims but perceived to be Muslims, and they will suffer just as much—when we see that we will take action," said Lynch.

If you can't dispute any of these

Idiot, I just disputed your original quote, without any counter-argument from you....and now you tell me I can't dispute?

 

[PoliticalChic]

In a moment I'll put forth the real world situation that will occur right in the United States if and when the Democrats/Liberals are victorious.

Go live in North Korea for a year and get back to us on the term, totalitarian party,...

You may attempt to change the subject in some absurd way...i.e., comparing the United States to North Korea...

...but, if you can't dispute any of these,....I've proven my case.


a. The first amendment clearly states "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech,..."
Branding some speech as 'hate speech,' and thereby granting government the right to abridge same, is as anti-American as one can get. Yet, Obama put on the Supreme Court a women who claimed just such a right for government.

b. Democrat/Liberal Icon Lyndon Johnson had just such an abridgment enforced against the religious community. Under LBJ, the law was passed that deprived pastors of their right of free speech....or lose their tax exempt status.
What possible compelling government interest could this represent????


c. And from Obama's Justice Department: "Loretta Lynch Vows to Prosecute Anti-Muslim Speech" Loretta Lynch Vows to Prosecute Anti-Muslim Speech, Calls San Bernardino 'Wonderful Opportunity' - Breitbart


d. "Frank Gaffney on Obama’s Attempt to Slip Irreversible Internet Surrender Under the Radar:
...the impending handover of Internet control to a foreign body
What they’re preparing to do is to cede, or surrender, the last vestige of American control, or even influence, over what is done with critical functions of the Internet. .... the freedom of the Internet – whether it’s the ability of people to communicate freely information on it– or countries, I should say, like Russia, and China, and Saudi Arabia, and Iran, and North Korea – don’t want us to have any say in this..."
Frank Gaffney on Obama's Attempt to Slip Irreversible Internet Surrender Under the Radar: 'We've Got Three Days to Fix This'


e. And here's a peek into the totalitarian-Hillary: Hillary Clinton's campaign has actually told the press what it cannot say in reporting about her: polarizing, calculating, disingenuous, insincere, ambitious, inevitable, entitled, over confident, Secretive, “will do anything to win,” “represents the past” and “out of touch."
Here Are The Words Hillary’s Supporters Won’t Let You Say



Thanks for your inadvertent support.




Better look up 'inadvertent.'

 

[AntonToo]

In a moment I'll put forth the real world situation that will occur right in the United States if and when the Democrats/Liberals are victorious.

Go live in North Korea for a year and get back to us on the term, totalitarian party,...

You may attempt to change the subject

Dumbass YOU are the one changing the subject.

I'm talking DIRECTLY about what Lunch said and how what she is talking about is NOT "anti-muslim speech", but rather speech that threatens VIOLENCE against Muslims.

 

[PoliticalChic]

c. And from Obama's Justice Department: "Loretta Lynch Vows to Prosecute Anti-Muslim Speech"

You have to a be an ignoramus to believe that...which you are, so it totally makes sense.

Hate speech is fully protected right as far as United States government is concerned. What is NOT protected is threats of violence, which is what Loretta Lynch was talking about.

No, there’s no “hate speech” exception to the First Amendment

"Now obviously this is a country that is based on free speech, but when it edges towards violence, when we see the potential for someone lifting that mantle of anti-Muslim rhetoric—or, as we saw after 9/11, violence directed at individuals who may not even be Muslims but perceived to be Muslims, and they will suffer just as much—when we see that we will take action," said Lynch.

Too funny...... coming from an ignorant leftard POS such as yourself.

Did you see the dunce actually posting a link with words like" edges towards violence"
and "the potential for."

What a moron.


The first amendment leaves no such wiggle room for the Fascists....

...and the Supreme Court has been far more specific:

Brandenburg v. Ohio
The Brandenburg test (also known as the imminent lawless action test)
The three distinct elements of this test (intent, imminence, and likelihood) have distinct precedential lineages.


Liberals....they know nothing, and they're proud of it.

 

[AntonToo]

Did you see the dunce actually posting a link with words like" edges towards violence"

Yes operative word being VIOLENCE! Get it dumbass?

So long as you don't threaten or advocate violence you can say whatever your heart pleases about Muslims as hate speech is fully protected right under First Amendment.

You can hate, and express hate for Muslims at your heart's content and nothing Lynch said contradicts that First Amendment right. Get it?

 

[NYcarbineer]

e. And here's a peek into the totalitarian-Hillary: Hillary Clinton's campaign has actually told the press what it cannot say in reporting about her: polarizing, calculating, disingenuous, insincere, ambitious, inevitable, entitled, over confident, Secretive, “will do anything to win,” “represents the past” and “out of touch."
Here Are The Words Hillary’s Supporters Won’t Let You Say
.

They won't let you say those words? How then were you able to say them?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Did you see the dunce actually posting a link with words like" edges towards violence"

Yes operative word being VIOLENCE! Get it dumbass?

So long as you don't threaten violence you can say whtever your heart pleases about Muslims.

Now...watch how easily I eviscerate your post (better look that up).

The term you keep using, implying ignorance, seems to have become a boomerang...

These are the requirements, as set down by the Supreme Court:

intent, imminence, and likelihood

Have someone buy you a dictionary, you fool.



Then you may recognize that Obama's AG is blowing smoke...and you've bought it like it was on sale:
c. And from Obama's Justice Department: "Loretta Lynch Vows to Prosecute Anti-Muslim Speech" Loretta Lynch Vows to Prosecute Anti-Muslim Speech, Calls San Bernardino 'Wonderful Opportunity' - Breitbart

In America before the Fascists took over, and you accepted Fascism....one was perfectly free to offer an opinion about Muslims....
...any opinion.

 

[AntonToo]

Did you see the dunce actually posting a link with words like" edges towards violence"

Yes operative word being VIOLENCE! Get it dumbass?

So long as you don't threaten violence you can say whtever your heart pleases about Muslims.

Now...watch how easily I eviscerate your post (better look that up).

The term you keep using, implying ignorance, seems to have become a boomerang...

These are the requirements, as set down by the Supreme Court:

intent, imminence, and likelihood

Have someone buy you a dictionary, you fool.



Then you may recognize that Obama's AG is blowing smoke...and you've bought it like it was on sale:
c. And from Obama's Justice Department: "Loretta Lynch Vows to Prosecute Anti-Muslim Speech" Loretta Lynch Vows to Prosecute Anti-Muslim Speech, Calls San Bernardino 'Wonderful Opportunity' - Breitbart

In America before the Fascists took over, and you accepted Fascism....one was perfectly free to offer an opinion about Muslims....
...any opinion.

...yea intent of VIOLENCE
...imminence of VIOLENCE
...likelyhood of VIOLENCE

What are you disputing dumbass?

Hate speech is protected, threatening violence is not, nothing Lynch said contradicts that. So what is your argument??

 

[PoliticalChic]

Other than a Fascist, Communist, Liberal, Socialist, Progressvie or Nazi....

...who would support this in a Supreme Court judge????

Certainly not an American.


1. "In her 1993 article "Regulation of Hate Speech and Pornography After R.A.V," for the University of Chicago Law Review, [Elena] Kagan writes:

"I take it as a given that we live in a society marred by racial and gender inequality, that certain forms of speech perpetuate and promote this inequality, and that the uncoerced disappearance of such speech would be cause for great elation."


[WHAT???? 'Disappearance of free speech'??? Calling George Orwell!]


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.


["...suppress speech because it is offensive...." This....put on the Supreme Court by Democrat Obama....]


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."

[Look who doesn't understand the First Amendment: the Fascist/Democrats]



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."

[...balancing the value of free speech.....in America... OMG!!!!!]



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"

http://thedaleygator.wordpress.com/2010/05/11/elena-kagan-radical-anti-gun-nut/

Brandenburg v. Ohio - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia




And look at the posters who rush to support this abomination.
The ersatz, home-grown brown shirts.

 

[AntonToo]

I think some of the more sane conservatives around here should show some integrity and check this crazy loon.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Did you see the dunce actually posting a link with words like" edges towards violence"

Yes operative word being VIOLENCE! Get it dumbass?

So long as you don't threaten violence you can say whtever your heart pleases about Muslims.

Now...watch how easily I eviscerate your post (better look that up).

The term you keep using, implying ignorance, seems to have become a boomerang...

These are the requirements, as set down by the Supreme Court:

intent, imminence, and likelihood

Have someone buy you a dictionary, you fool.



Then you may recognize that Obama's AG is blowing smoke...and you've bought it like it was on sale:
c. And from Obama's Justice Department: "Loretta Lynch Vows to Prosecute Anti-Muslim Speech" Loretta Lynch Vows to Prosecute Anti-Muslim Speech, Calls San Bernardino 'Wonderful Opportunity' - Breitbart

In America before the Fascists took over, and you accepted Fascism....one was perfectly free to offer an opinion about Muslims....
...any opinion.

...yea intent of VIOLENCE
...imminence of VIOLENCE
...likelyhood of VIOLENCE

What are you disputing dumbass?

Hate speech is protected, threatening violence is not, nothing Lynch said contradicts that. So what is your argument??

Where are your links showing
intent, imminence, and likelihood???


Oh....there are none.


Just the Fascist government threatening legal action if any American dares to voice an opinion contrary to government opinon.

And you support it.

Sieg Heil, you Fascist.

 

[AntonToo]

Where are your links showing
intent, imminence, and likelihood???

WHERE IS YOUR ARGUMENT?

WHY are links needed? To substantiate what? Anyone home?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Now....about Bill's wife as the Tasmanian candidate....

3. Take a look at what goes in what we might view as one of our sister-democracies, and picture it here.....and explain why Bill's wife should, correctly, be called the Tasmanian Candidate.

Since 1998, The Australian state of Tasmania's Anti-Discrimination Act has made it an offence to discriminate on the grounds of a wide range of attributes:

Race; age; sexual orientation; lawful sexual activity; gender; gender identity; intersex; marital status; relationship status; pregnancy; breastfeeding; parental status; family responsibilities; disability; industrial activity; political belief or affiliation; political activity; religious belief or affiliation; religious activity; irrelevant criminal record; irrelevant medical record; association with a person who has, or is believed to have, any of these attributes.



And Section 17(1) of the Act makes it an offence to,

...engage in any conduct which offends, humiliates, intimidates, insults or ridicules another person on the basis of an attribute referred to [above], in circumstances in which a reasonable person, having regard to all the circumstances, would have anticipated that the other person would be offended, humiliated, intimidated, insulted or ridiculed.”
MercatorNet: Areopagitica Tasmania




"....offends, humiliates, intimidates, insults or ridicules....."

We can't have that!
Free speech be damned!


That what a Democrat vote supports.....the Tasmanian- not American- view of freedom of speech and conscience.

 

[AntonToo]

Now....about Bill's wife as the Tasmanian candidate...

Sounds very high energy!

 

[CrusaderFrank]

In a moment I'll put forth the real world situation that will occur right in the United States if and when the Democrats/Liberals are victorious.

Go live in North Korea for a year and get back to us on the term, totalitarian party,...

You may attempt to change the subject

Dumbass YOU are the one changing the subject.

I'm talking DIRECTLY about what Lunch said and how what she is talking about is NOT "anti-muslim speech", but rather speech that threatens VIOLENCE against Muslims.

LOL

Did you even read the OP?