I Don't Understand Why Democrats Keep Calling For Free Speech

[Robert W]

Seriously lol, you or she thinks I follow her? The kind of follow so that I can respond easily to her comments? Is that what she believes?

While she certainly has the right to put forth her half-baked, uneducated ideas, there is nothing that says that we have to seriously entertain them.

I wanted to see if she truly believes the things she says on this message board, because if she really feels like she is in danger then she should report it to the police. You don't agree?

And for the record, this started the minute she posted that propaganda video screaming "Whites Attacks, Black Racist". You all may have control of the White House, the House & Senate as well as the majority of this board but when people blatantly lie about others ESPECIALLY when they refer to Black people as "the usual suspects" and then start going down a list of falsehoods and white grievances then I don't understand why you're even surprised that there are those who will stand up and attempt to correct her misconceptions.

Afterall, we don't know who put up those posters but we DO KNOW for certain that the HBCUs had nothing to do with Charlie's Kirk death yet they were attacked immediately with bomb and other threats to the point where classes had to be cancelled.

Clearly you and her are very smart. So, you want to shove her around and told her to watch your ideas roll out. Race seems to be the issue with you.

Blacks never played any role in the execution of Charlie Kirk.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

A lot of you keep asking me this question. Even some of you being Republicans. Well this is why. Tell me honestly, do you think that any of these people should be allowed to walk free in society?


Second wave of threatening Charlie Kirk flyers found at Georgetown | Fox News Georgetown acts quickly after disturbing flyers reemerge on campus mocking Charlie Kirk: 'Rest in p-ss'

Let them continue to tell us who they are

 

[the watcher]

People like this I want legally executed as they're dangerous.



These people already had a history of violence though. I thought that you of all people would have realized that.

Management has a plan and it's working

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

An unconditional discharge is a court sentence where a defendant is found guilty of an offense but does not face any punishment, such as jail time or probation. This means the case is closed, and while the conviction remains on the record, the individual is not subject to further penalties. fox5dc.com

So he is a convicted criminal.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

Charlie never intruded. Charlie came by invitation. No idea until he died, he was never welcomed by blacks.

Oh gee, Charlie allegedly was never welcomed by Blacks. Could it be because of how much he bad mouth Black people? Would you welcome someone who denigrated and lied on you and everyone in your family?

 

[Carl in Michigan]

AND because SCOTUS is basically backing him screwing everyone over, we have him wreaking havoc & destruction unlike anything ever seen before

Maybe that should tell you something about your arguments. Probably not. But you're not being "screwed over." Although it would seem that way to someone whose been content with the path this nation has been on

 

[Carl in Michigan]

Oh gee, Charlie allegedly was never welcomed by Blacks. Could it be because of how much he bad mouth Black people? Would you welcome someone who denigrated and lied on you and everyone in your family?

He's not welcome by your people because you bought into the same LIES that got him murdered

 

[Carl in Michigan]

This one hasn't quite crossed that line, but he needs to be on a watch list

 

[Robert W]

Oh gee, Charlie allegedly was never welcomed by Blacks. Could it be because of how much he bad mouth Black people? Would you welcome someone who denigrated and lied on you and everyone in your family?

Charlie Kirk never bad mouthed black people. Where did you get that notion?

 

[Foxfyre]

No, I have not "studied" them but I do know that in the beginning they only allowed adult white males who owned real property (land) to participate in government matters.

The ability to impact the lives of people all across the country and world in an instant - no, I don't believe they envisioned such a thing or the richest man in the world rewarding people with a million dollars a pop for voting for the candidate that they wanted to place in the White House.

And bad SCOTUS decisions are exactly what got us to where we are today.

If you had studied them, you would understand better why in their time and their culture, the Founding Fathers structured things as they were.

You would know how they knew that poorer people outnumbered the rich by 1000 to 1 so that alone would limit the power of the rich, as would most power given to the states and local communities. But they were also concerned about corporate and big money influence. So they intended us to be a people government by laws, not the capricious whims of individuals.

You would know that they trusted the people to govern themselves and had no illusions that people would be happy via the benevolence or paternalistic initiatives of government. The central government was not to in the business of any form of charity or provision but it's duty was to enforce the law, secure and protect the unalienable rights of the people, and facilitate the people governing themselves. They knew there could be no equality of circumstances but all people had the opportunity and right to achieve and acquire what they legally chose or were capable of achieving. Equality in the right to try, not equality of outcome.

Bad SCOTUS decisions have indeed been detrimental to the vision of the Founders, but also good SCOTUS decisions have ensured we would move forward and evolve as a free, noble, just, and successful people.

And the right to free speech was for people to be able to express their hopes, opinions, beliefs, wants, criticisms without fear of retaliation by an authoritarian government. They never intended that free speech be the ability to maliciously harm or infringe on the rights of others.

 

[Foxfyre]

That's why I said, CAN be prosecuted. The left will squeal like the pigs they are, but real threats and incitement needs to be prosecuted

The current administration agrees with that and are called Hitler, Nazis, fascists, Gestapo etc. and the new assigned attack phrase 'authoritarian' because of it.

 

[Foxfyre]

You said: The Founders never intended that 'free speech' be used to protect those those use speech in incite panic or violence or other destructive behavior or facilitate/promote lawlessness.

Like "To arms... to arms.... The British are coming."
Would be prohibited speech, since it incited violence and destruction.

That would have been before we took this country away from the British so is irrelevant to this discussion.

 

[JohnDB]

 

[Carl in Michigan]

The current administration agrees with that and are called Hitler, Nazis, fascists, Gestapo etc. and the new assigned attack phrase 'authoritarian' because of it.

Should you hold back justice because the mob is pissed off?

 

[Foxfyre]

Should you hold back justice because the mob is pissed off?

The current Administration doesn't think so. And I support their efforts to restore America to the country it was intended to be before the 'mob' tried to destroy it so they could establish a totalitarian system where they would enjoy total power forever.

 

[Robert W]

That would have been before we took this country away from the British so is irrelevant to this discussion.

This is a good laboratory to examine the Democrats minds. Where they trip all over themselves daily.

 

[BackAgain]

This one hasn't quite crossed that line, but he needs to be on a watch list

Meh. He’s just young and stupid and easily mislead.

 

[Carl in Michigan]

Meh. He’s just young and stupid and easily mislead.

Like Tyler Robinson

 

[yidnar]

A lot of you keep asking me this question. Even some of you being Republicans. Well this is why. Tell me honestly, do you think that any of these people should be allowed to walk free in society?


Second wave of threatening Charlie Kirk flyers found at Georgetown | Fox News Georgetown acts quickly after disturbing flyers reemerge on campus mocking Charlie Kirk: 'Rest in p-ss'

threatening people with flyers isn't free speech .. its incitement to violence .. we need freedom of speech .. even speech we don't like .. as long as said speech isn't inciting violence it is legal ..

 

[BackAgain]

Like Tyler Robinson

Hopefully he doesn’t have any rifles.

Meanwhile, my adcice to him is:

Cry harder.