End The First Amendment???

[JakeStarkey]

PC would be a great editer for an Islamofascist newsrag. She is what she criticizes.

 

[PoliticalChic]

In Islamic countries free speach is an alien concept, it just doesn't exist. You are not free to say what you want in those countries, talking bad about a countries leader or dictator would get you picked up by the secret police, nevermind if you talked bad about Islam. Just the idea that someone would mock Islam and talk bad about it is just not fathomable to them and of course they want to end it.

Islamic countries???


Check this out in NYC yesterday....


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ABfcjn_npb8&feature=player_embedded]Spray Paint Jihaad! - Arrest New York Subway - 25 Sep 2012 - YouTube[/ame]

New York has so many Muslims, it could be a Muslim country.

NewYorkistan????

 

[PoliticalChic]

PC would be a great editer for an Islamofascist newsrag. She is what she criticizes.

I’m sorry I hurt your feeling when I called you stupid.

I really thought you already knew.

 

[del]

PC would be a great editer for an Islamofascist newsrag. She is what she criticizes.

I’m sorry I hurt your feeling when I called you stupid.

I really thought you already knew.

good one, chunky

 

[thanatos144]

yep here is Obama's view of the first amendment.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I was actually thinking of "A horse, a horse...", but yours is equally pointless to the thread.

Pointless?


Shoe fit, B's?

Exactly
Much like;

Friends, Romans, countrymen, lend me your ears;
I come to bury Caesar, not to praise him.

1. I see....you imagined it to be pointless simply because you couldn't understand the inference!
I see your problem: to infer requires the ability to reason.


2. As a conservative never stands so tall as when she stoops to help a Lib....

...I'll acquiesce to do so!

Mark Antony said he was there to put Caesar to rest....not to advance the idea of his goodness.
The more intelligent understand that the very opposite was his intention....this is why you had trouble seeing the point.

This is the same with the Slate trial-balloon!
To praise ending free speech....or to bury it?


The effort is to place the idea of limiting free speech in the what-passes-for-minds of the reliable Democrat voters.

Did you know that Canada does not allow free speech?



Your welcome.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Oh, now your angst is showing, honey.

PC would be a great editer for an Islamofascist newsrag. She is what she criticizes.

I’m sorry I hurt your feeling when I called you stupid.

I really thought you already knew.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Oh, now your angst is showing, honey.

PC would be a great editer for an Islamofascist newsrag. She is what she criticizes.

I’m sorry I hurt your feeling when I called you stupid.

I really thought you already knew.

Jakey...You better be wearing the Hurt Locker outfit…

So...you think I have some sort of 'dread' as exemplified by calling you stupid???


What's funny is that you don't realize that you've verified my claim.


But, to gild the lily, check this out:
I’ve been carefully observing your ability, and once we get beyond building a log cabin with your French fries, there’s not too much in your resume….


Sound like I have any 'dread' relating to you?

Now it's time for you to head back into the Roach Motel…

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

For the sake of objectively, let us, for the moment, set aside the title of PoliticalChic's thread "End The First Amendment?" and examine a few of the ideas presented in Posner's piece. Let's evaluate their meanings and their relative merits.

Salman Rushdie recently claimed that bad ideas, “like vampires … die in the sunlight” rather than persist in a glamorized underground existence. But bad ideas never die: They are zombies, not vampires. Bad ideas like fascism, Communism, and white supremacy have roamed the countryside of many an open society. —Eric Posner​

This is the only statement in Posner's piece with which I agree. The rest are the sort of claptrap that would allow the zombies to roam unchallenged.

For example:

As often happens, what starts out as a grudging political settlement has become, when challenged from abroad, a dogmatic principle to be imposed universally. —Eric Posner​

Imposed universally is a startling choice of words . . . given that he's conflating the unbridled free speech of Americans in a technologically global forum with an imposition on others abroad. The only imposition being suggested here would be that exerted against the unbridled free speech of Americans, unless he's suggesting that Americans are demanding all societies have unbridled free speech because we demand nothing less in ours. That's not startling; that's absurd.

Some on this thread claim that PoliticalChic's dispute with Posner is off the mark, albeit, by confounding the essence of her dispute with the potential, universal threat to the unbridled free speech of the global forum posed by certain members of the United Nations. It's I who posted the related U.N. story, and I never claimed that the actualization of this threat would necessarily overthrow the First Amendment in America . . . though such a thing would certainly have repercussions on the unfettered expression of American ideas abroad. Make no mistake about that, and the reality of that, apparently, files right over the heads of some.

No. PoliticalChick's dispute with Posner goes to his sentiments as they correspond with those expressed by certain members of Obama's Administration, his associates, persons who are clearly not big fans of unbridled free speech, particularly when it comes to the expression of ideas with which they disagree. That coupled with Obama's womanish, overly sensitive concerns for the feelings of barbarians, PoliticalChick suggests that we have good reason to be suspicious of the sincerity of Obama's declarations of allegiance to First Amendment liberties.

I agree.

So much for the strawmen erected by those attempting to obstruct access to the actual nature of PoliticalChick's observation and subsequent challenge.

Now onto more of Posner's tripe. . . .

Suddenly, the disparagement of other people and their beliefs is not an unfortunate fact but a positive good. —Eric Posner​

I'm gettin' a weepy, snot-stained hanky feelin'. Excuse me for a moment. . . .

Ah, that's better.

What do bad manners, whether intended or perceived, have to do with the provisions of unbridled free speech? The positive good, obviously, is unbridled free speech; the intended or perceived disparagements are among the incidental aspects of the same.

It contributes to the “marketplace of ideas,” as though we would seriously admit that Nazis or terrorist fanatics might turn out to be right after all. —Eric Posner​

Let's turn this on its head: as though the self-anointed arbiters of "decency" in history have never been the "Nazis or terrorist fanatics" of the world.

So symbolic attachment to uneasy, historically contingent compromises, and a half-century of judicial decisions addressing domestic political dissent and countercultural pressures, prevent the U.S. government from restricting the distribution of a video that causes violence abroad and damages America’s reputation. —Eric Posner​

As the saying goes, never has so much been attributed to so little. No. The cause of the recent troubles goes to the depravity of mindless, nose-picking barbarians ginned up for decades by evil men with an agenda of world domination, not to any video. And how is our reputation damaged by the insanity that rages in Islamic societies?

Imbecile!

The rest is just more of the same . . . with this bit of drivel thrown in—as if the first were true about the liberal view, as if the second were not a subliminal slight, an incomplete description of the conservative view and as if, in this instance, it were not America's very sovereignty assaulted, the video merely the pretext of cynical thugs . . . as if an unapologetic defense of human liberty were not a vital interest of U.S. foreign policy.

Can I get an Amen, brother and sisters?

And so combining the liberal view that government should not interfere with political discourse, and the conservative view that government should not interfere with commerce, we end up with the bizarre principle that U.S. foreign policy interests cannot justify any restrictions on speech whatsoever. —Eric Posner​

*crickets chirping*



Posts on related topic:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/249827-obamas-whiny-apology-tour-continues.html#post6058927

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/249827-obamas-whiny-apology-tour-continues.html#post6059627

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/249827-obamas-whiny-apology-tour-continues.html#post6060010

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/249827-obamas-whiny-apology-tour-continues.html#post6064232

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/249827-obamas-whiny-apology-tour-continues-2.html#post6068047

 

[JakeStarkey]

PC, you have limited ability as a writer. You write for a broken libertarian-oriented philosophy. You get irked when you get laughed at. You are being laughed at, and that is what the sensible posters here will be doing for a long, long time.

Tough for you.

You simply don't have what it takes.

Oh, now your angst is showing, honey.

I’m sorry I hurt your feeling when I called you stupid.

I really thought you already knew.

Jakey...You better be wearing the Hurt Locker outfit…

So...you think I have some sort of 'dread' as exemplified by calling you stupid???


What's funny is that you don't realize that you've verified my claim.


But, to gild the lily, check this out:
I’ve been carefully observing your ability, and once we get beyond building a log cabin with your French fries, there’s not too much in your resume….


Sound like I have any 'dread' relating to you?

Now it's time for you to head back into the Roach Motel…

 

[daveman]

no, pretty much everyone laughs at her

and you

am i laughing?

Dunno. Are you looking in a mirror?

good one, dave.

are you and political chunk sharing a writer?

You know how you like to pretend you're witty and clever?

 

[daveman]

Our little board loons keep on daving.

Hush, child.

 

[daveman]

Obama's claim of being a Constitutional scholar strains credibility.

Maybe someday he'll read the document he swore to protect and defend.

Quite right.
When, oh when, are the Supreme Court going to pull him into line?

Do you really not know someone has to file a lawsuit first? SCOTUS just doesn't act when they see fit?

 

[daveman]

In Islamic countries free speach is an alien concept, it just doesn't exist. You are not free to say what you want in those countries, talking bad about a countries leader or dictator would get you picked up by the secret police, nevermind if you talked bad about Islam. Just the idea that someone would mock Islam and talk bad about it is just not fathomable to them and of course they want to end it.

Islamic countries???


Check this out in NYC yesterday....


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ABfcjn_npb8&feature=player_embedded]Spray Paint Jihaad! - Arrest New York Subway - 25 Sep 2012 - YouTube[/ame]

Remember, the First Amendment gives the left the right to damage public and private property.

Right, USMB lefties?

 

[MikeK]

Two years ago I would have said I think you're wrong.

A year ago I would have said I don't think you're right.

Today I can only say I hope you're mistaken.

 

[there4eyeM]

With all the attacks on personal liberty in recent times from both political parties, no one who associates with one can honestly defend or attack.

Being always a 'liberal' or always a 'conservative' shows an inflexibility that is less than human.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Two years ago I would have said I think you're wrong.

A year ago I would have said I don't think you're right.

Today I can only say I hope you're mistaken.

Me too, Mikey......me too.

 

[thanatos144]

With all the attacks on personal liberty in recent times from both political parties, no one who associates with one can honestly defend or attack.

Being always a 'liberal' or always a 'conservative' shows an inflexibility that is less than human.

It is called being wrong (progressive) or right (conservative)....That isnt being inflexible idiot that's called following the truth.

 

[PoliticalChic]

PC, you have limited ability as a writer. You write for a broken libertarian-oriented philosophy. You get irked when you get laughed at. You are being laughed at, and that is what the sensible posters here will be doing for a long, long time.

Tough for you.

You simply don't have what it takes.

Oh, now your angst is showing, honey.

Jakey...You better be wearing the Hurt Locker outfit…

So...you think I have some sort of 'dread' as exemplified by calling you stupid???


What's funny is that you don't realize that you've verified my claim.


But, to gild the lily, check this out:
I’ve been carefully observing your ability, and once we get beyond building a log cabin with your French fries, there’s not too much in your resume….


Sound like I have any 'dread' relating to you?

Now it's time for you to head back into the Roach Motel…

Jakel....

....I can't begin to tell you how very much I value your opinion!


I won't waste a minute in taking your critique to heart!

 

[JakeStarkey]

Thanatos, go listen to Rush for the gnashing of teeth, etc.