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

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

Is anyone else sick of trying to explain to these people how the First Amendment works?

I don't believe they care how things work. If things work out for them & their side, it's wonderful, God smiled down on them, etc. If it goes against them, if it's a hoax, conspiracy, fake news, "I don't know him, never met him...", etc.

Rinse and repeat.

 

[ChristisKing]

I don't believe they care how things work.

 

[Zincwarrior]

They claim that it's free speech for them to celebrate the assassination of Charlie Kirk and unfortunately it is, but where was his free speech to disagree with their views? Why must they murder people who don't agree with them? Oh wait, I get it,... It's the only way they think that they're going to win by silencing the threat. The only thing is that Tyler Robinson didn't silence Charlie Kirk at all. His plan backfired because now his voice is louder than ever. Nobody ever did manage to prove him wrong. That's why he was assassinated.

What a stupid thread.

 

[westwall]

Because there is no point in having proceedings if people are allowed to lie about what occurred without any consequences for them failing to be truthful.

That is entirely different that what the 1st amendment protects which is the GOVERNMENT interfering in the free speech rights of "the people" [of the United States].

Then stop lying.

 

[westwall]

What a stupid thread.

Your specialty

 

[Zincwarrior]

Your specialty

Quiet Russian.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

Most of those gun deaths are by leftist supported gangs in large cities, Transgender crazies shooting up schools (the last 10) and by suicide in which most are on the left.

Most are actually suicides.

 

[Moonglow]

They don't know what free speech and the 1st amendment is all about. They make up stuff about it.

Just like you are making stuff up about what they don't know.

 

[Moonglow]

Name me one time Republicans ever glorified anybody getting murdered.

Sarah Palin, Republican candidates react to death of ...​

Los Angeles Times
https://www.latimes.com › world › la-xpm-2011-may-0...




May 1, 2011 — Sarah Palin said Sunday the nation is “united in celebration and gratitude” following the death of Osama bin Laden. “God bless all the brave .

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

Again, you don't have to mourn his loss, but you don't need to mock him.




There it is TemplarKormac! At least many other people on here get it. Ah well I got this bozo on Candid Camera and sent it to Steve!!

Can you guess what's wrong with this phrase?
"...you don't need..."

 

[Carl in Michigan]

There is no justification for murder but if
you are publicly going to spew hatred some crazy person out there who feels he or his family is being attacked is going to respond badly. Yes it's sad but in part he brought this on himself.

There was no "hate" His debates were ALWAYS CIVIL at least on his end. You call disagreement hate

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

So what? I never said that it was right.

Then what are you bitching about?!?

 

[whitehall]

Its likely that the victims of the 2nd rate federal education system sponsored by democrats and the left wing media have no concept of the Bill of Rights or the rest of the Constitution. Ironically they rely on internet based foreign hate-America propaganda rather than education about American history and they are motivated by information sources promoted by the left wing media and socialist democrats.

 

[westwall]

Quiet Russian.

You first, dumbass.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

Kyle Rittenhouse wasn't murder it was self-defense. George Floyd has a little bit of a gray area, but either way he was a criminal.



I'm saying that it's only demoncrats mocking Charlie Kirk's death. What about that don't you understand?



What else do you want me to do? I'm condemning it.

Rittenhouse was acquitted on a technicality, which was icing on the case of him having shot & killed two Black Lives Matter Protestors and injured a third. For which he received a standing ovation.

As far as George Floyd is concerned, yes he had a criminal record however there are MILLIONS of individuals in the U.S. with criminal records. Not only does our Constitution not allow having committed a crime in the past as grounds for the police to kill people, the fact that you flippantly dismissed mention of his inclusion in this discussion as "he was a criminal" says far more about you and your lack of understanding & knowledge of our laws and constitution than it says about him.

On one hand you're chastising people for not showing the proper reverence for Kirk being killed yet you dismiss the killing of a Black citizen by our GOVERNMENT via the hands of former police officer Chauvin who WAS convicted of murdering him, as what? He deserved it because of his past?

That's some industrial grade hypocrisy.

 

[Stann]

There was no "hate" His debates were ALWAYS CIVIL at least on his end. You call disagreement hate

You are kidding. Staged one -sided arguments to demonstrate superiority of one life over another. Right , that's not implied hatred , it's directed , purpuseful hatred.

They think the 1st Amendment means its okay to lie.

Trump is the biggest liar there is , why isn't he banned. He has free speech. Others shouldn't have the same right even when they're telling the truth you don't want to hear. I think not.

 

[Carl in Michigan]

 

[Cougarbear]

Just like you are making stuff up about what they don't know.

Do you have any resemblance to intelligence? I don't see it.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

View attachment 1165932

I take it you're trying to show me something that pertains to defamation? Who is being defamed in this snippet?

 

[westwall]

Rittenhouse was acquitted on a technicality, which was icing on the case of him having shot & killed two Black Lives Matter Protestors and injured a third. For which he received a standing ovation.

As far as George Floyd is concerned, yes he had a criminal record however there are MILLIONS of individuals in the U.S. with criminal records. Not only does our Constitution not allow having committed a crime in the past as grounds for the police to kill people, the fact that you flippantly dismissed mention of his inclusion in this discussion as "he was a criminal" says far more about you and your lack of understanding & knowledge of our laws and constitution than it says about him.

On one hand you're chastising people for not showing the proper reverence for Kirk being killed yet you dismiss the killing of a Black citizen by our GOVERNMENT via the hands of former police officer Chauvin who WAS convicted of murdering him, as what? He deserved it because of his past?

That's some industrial grade hypocrisy.

No, he wasn't. He used an affirmative defense, which means his use of deadly force was AUTHORIZED.

That's why you haven't heard of any wrongful death lawsuit. His killing of the two scumbags was ruled LAWFUL.