JD Vance on free speech

[martybegan]

Civil, criminal. All able to be adjudicated with legal penalties.

That’s a far cry from a “critique”, which is what your argument is reduced to. That’s how far you’ve retreated.

Where did I ever say I agreed with Vance on criminal charges?

 

[Marener]

Where did I ever say I agreed with Vance on criminal charges?

Doesnt matter. You’re already walking back a legal argument to a critique.

It’s a retreat.

 

[martybegan]

Doesnt matter. You’re already walking back a legal argument to a critique.

It’s a retreat.

Believe what you want to. It's meaningless considering you think women can have penises.

 

[Marener]

Believe what you want to. It's meaningless considering you think women can have penises.

You’re in full retreat here. Hilarious.

 

[martybegan]

You’re in full retreat here. Hilarious.

Says the moron that 50 posts later still just can't say "only men have penises"

 

[Marener]

Says the moron that 50 posts later still just can't say "only men have penises"

You know you’re a failure when you can’t even stick to an argument. You’re always dodging. Never defending. Because you can’t defend. It’s indefensible.

 

[martybegan]

You know you’re a failure when you can’t even stick to an argument. You’re always dodging. Never defending. Because you can’t defend. It’s indefensible.

That's a "you" problem. Like most SJW losers you can't comprehend opposing viewpoints.

Now can a woman have a penis, yes or no?

 

[Marener]

That's a "you" problem. Like most SJW losers you can't comprehend opposing viewpoints.

Now can a woman have a penis, yes or no?

Your inability to defend your idiotic statements is very much your problem. Your refusal to even acknowledge it is very much your problem.

 

[martybegan]

Your inability to defend your idiotic statements is very much your problem. Your refusal to even acknowledge it is very much your problem.

Still can't simply say "only men have penises"

Why is that?

 

[Marener]

Still can't simply say "only men have penises"

Why is that?

You can’t discuss the topic because your position is indefensible.

We don’t need to ask why you won’t discuss the topic. It’s very obvious. You failed.

 

[martybegan]

You can’t discuss the topic because your position is indefensible.

We don’t need to ask why you won’t discuss the topic. It’s very obvious. You failed.

We have the discussed the topic. Over multiple threads you have not been able to answer a simple question.

Can women have penises, yes or no?

All of the left's delusions and idiocy stems from the inability to answer this simple question.

 

[Marener]

We have the discussed the topic. Over multiple threads you have not been able to answer a simple question.

Can women have penises, yes or no?

All of the left's delusions and idiocy stems from the inability to answer this simple question.

Your argument has shifted. At first you tried to relabel speech as a campaign donation, which is unconstitutional. Then you’re trying to say there’s some broadcast rules, but never got around to explaining that.

Now you won’t even discuss the topic anymore because you failed miserably.

 

[Concerned American]

Physician, heal thyself. Hypocrite

Alex Jones still must pay $1.3B Sandy Hook defamation verdict, appeals court rules

Jones’ lawyer said he plans to appeal to the Connecticut Supreme Court.

nypost.com

 

[martybegan]

Your argument has shifted. At first you tried to relabel speech as a campaign donation, which is unconstitutional. Then you’re trying to say there’s some broadcast rules, but never got around to explaining that.

Now you won’t even discuss the topic anymore because you failed miserably.

The discussion shifted, as discussions often do.

Editing with the intent of making one candidate look better for political reasons, not speech.

Over the airwaves, which demand equal access for candidates if said access isn't paid for.

 

[Concerned American]

Like people going around yelling "THEY ARE EATING THE DOGS" in the media?

Like people going around yelling "HE SAID TO DRINK BLEACH" in the media?

 

[ColonelAngus]

Any of you can go to Twitter right now and see MANY MANY MANY tweets that blast the fuck out of Trump and Musk.

What happened to the BULLSHIT NARRATIVE that Musk would censor all content he didn’t like?

There are tons of posts that bash him HARD. Mean shit.

How am I reading it if Musk is censoring?

You lefties are not LIARS, ARE YOU?

 

[pknopp]

Like people going around yelling "HE SAID TO DRINK BLEACH" in the media?

Sure.

 

[Marener]

The discussion shifted, as discussions often do.

Editing with the intent of making one candidate look better for political reasons, not speech.

Over the airwaves, which demand equal access for candidates if said access isn't paid for.

It only shifts when you can’t defend your point and won’t concede.

Editing is speech. That’s the point of the Tornillo decision.

As for FCC, you’re going to need a better argument. Equal airtime rules don’t apply to journalism. Even if you don’t want to consider them journalists, 60 Minutes offered an interview with Trump and he declined.

How 60 Minutes found out Donald Trump would not participate in an election special

Voters will not hear directly from former President Donald Trump during the 60 Minutes election special. Trump, after initially accepting, later declined to participate.

www.cbsnews.com

 

[martybegan]

It only shifts when you can’t defend your point and won’t concede.

Editing is speech. That’s the point of the Tornillo decision.

As for FCC, you’re going to need a better argument. Equal airtime rules don’t apply to journalism. Even if you don’t want to consider them journalists, 60 Minutes offered an interview with Trump and he declined.

How 60 Minutes found out Donald Trump would not participate in an election special

Voters will not hear directly from former President Donald Trump during the 60 Minutes election special. Trump, after initially accepting, later declined to participate.

www.cbsnews.com

Aiding a campaign with what ends up being a free air time advertisement isn't journalism.

 

[Marener]

Aiding a campaign with what ends up being a free air time advertisement isn't journalism.

Already addressed.

Even if you don’t want to consider them journalists, 60 Minutes offered an interview with Trump and he declined.