The Democrat War Against Free Speech

[Moonglow]

Listen up you leftist morons, this is how it will work from now on....

What we're talking about is the right oh the Waltons and the Kochs t to buy favorable candidates and legislation.with unlimited campaign contributions.

Because, using a strict interpretation of the Constitution, we know our founders assumed that money is speech.

and that business is a person...

 

[Moonglow]

No 'wiggle room'?

Are laws against child pornography unconstitutional? They can abridge freedom of speech, expression, the press.

I'm sure soon the liberals will make child pornography legal. Your party already supports incest.

If liberals wanted to make child porn legal, they'd be supporting the OP's interpretation of the 1st Amendment -

no wiggle room, i.e., no exceptions...

Just give it time. Last year we stated gay marriage could lead to incest marriage. We were told we were crazy, well it's gonna happen in New York.

It's been going on since Adam and Eve, where the hell have you been?

Gay marriage has been going on since Adam and eve? Wow what happened last year?

incest marriage, how in the hell did the first humans reproduce without incest?

 

[NYcarbineer]

What we're talking about is the right oh the Waltons and the Kochs t to buy favorable candidates and legislation.with unlimited campaign contributions.

Because, using a strict interpretation of the Constitution, we know our founders assumed that money is speech.

Right on cue another far left drone comment not based on reality..

Another right winger trapped in hypocrisy. Automatically took the side of the OP without realizing it was the opposite of Koshology. Oops if we follow the PC idea in the OP kiddy porn has to be accepted and allowed. Well no, Koshology allows for selected exceptions. Koshology experts will determine when the PC interpretation of the constitution can be ignored. We will form a panel or court and call it KSCOTUS.

And another far left drone that does not only understand the OP, but does not understand the Constitution..

Tell us in your own words what point the OP is trying to make. What is she trying to 'teach' us about the 1st Amendment.

Then you can tell us in your own words why you've figured out she's wrong.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Since you have no idea what the issue is here you should probably just stop posting in this thread.

You keep proving that the far left does not understand the Constitution..

I understand the Constitution to mean that it is not unconstitutional to pass laws against child pornography,

the language of the 1st Amendment notwithstanding.

Am I right or wrong?

You are a far left drone that is upset that child porn in illegal.

If that is the case you want to make why put people away for murder? or for domestic violence? after all they were just expressing themselves right?

Try to be reasonable for once in your life. I'm not the one arguing that child porn laws are unconstitutional. The OP is strongly implying they are because they abridge free speech and freedom of the press.

Why don't reread the OP and see if I'm not correct.

The irony of the "Try to be reasonable for once in your life." from a far left drone..

Yes you are upset that child porn is illegal and that you blazed into the thread running the standard far left narrative.

And your latest post shows that you do not understand the OP by the far left programming that you run on..

Where did I say I was upset child porn was illegal?

I said just the opposite. Can you grow up just a little and learn to be reasonable?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

I'm sure soon the liberals will make child pornography legal. Your party already supports incest.

If liberals wanted to make child porn legal, they'd be supporting the OP's interpretation of the 1st Amendment -

no wiggle room, i.e., no exceptions...

Just give it time. Last year we stated gay marriage could lead to incest marriage. We were told we were crazy, well it's gonna happen in New York.

It's been going on since Adam and Eve, where the hell have you been?

Gay marriage has been going on since Adam and eve? Wow what happened last year?

incest marriage, how in the hell did the first humans reproduce without incest?

Cain and Abel had to get their wives from somewhere eh? It's not like God made Eve, and Stephanie, and Patty, and Sharon but if he did they left that part out.

 

[PoliticalChic]

And focus like a laser on this phrase: "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech,..."
No wiggle room there...'no law.'

No 'wiggle room'?

Are laws against child pornography unconstitutional? They can abridge freedom of speech, expression, the press.

I'm sure soon the liberals will make child pornography legal. Your party already supports incest.

Is the OP right or wrong? Are laws against child porn unconstitutional. She's implying they are.

We as a society as a whole has a job to protect our children, no matter how you twist and turn a law.

You're desperately avoiding the OP's claim. Is she right or wrong? She's claiming that what you call our job to protect children is unconstitutional if it in any way whatsoever violates the literal text of the 1st Amendment.

Why are you arguing with me instead of her?

NYLiar:

Please quote me instead of putting your usual dishonest Leftist spin on my posts.

With appreciation.....

and so on and so forth....

 

[Moonglow]

If liberals wanted to make child porn legal, they'd be supporting the OP's interpretation of the 1st Amendment -

no wiggle room, i.e., no exceptions...

Just give it time. Last year we stated gay marriage could lead to incest marriage. We were told we were crazy, well it's gonna happen in New York.

It's been going on since Adam and Eve, where the hell have you been?

Gay marriage has been going on since Adam and eve? Wow what happened last year?

incest marriage, how in the hell did the first humans reproduce without incest?

Cain and Abel had to get their wives from somewhere eh? It's not like God made Eve, and Stephanie, and Patty, and Sharon but if he did they left that part out.

Either that or they just gheyed themselves out till Ma gave in...

 

[Wyatt earp]

I don't deny the fact that exceptional people built this nation. That is without question. I'm proud of that. However, this idea that Americans of today are more exceptional than other people in this world is such non sense. Stupid, entitled, materialistic, and arrogant is what Americans are.

My god, just look at the Tea Party. There are foreigners who admire America, but when they look at the Tea Party, they just scoff or laugh. Tea baggers, in terms of intelligence, are much stupider than the average person the world over. They are also selfish, arrogant and racist. I mean this is the movement who bitches about government spending but also insists on ridiculous tax cuts. How can you respect people who don't understand the concept of revenue?

And yes, I do think there are some great Americans living today. I just don't think being American has anything to do with it.

In terms of citizens, America is not at all superior to the rest of the world. Let's stop pretending that it is.

1. Our first lesson today involves the nexus of grammar and of civics. The lesson goes beyond syntax, the arrangement of words and phrases to create well-formed sentences in a language, and centers on why, out of all the choices, particular words are used.

Begin with alpha and omega of America, the Constitution, and, perhaps, the best know portion of the Constitution, the first amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
First Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia


And focus like a laser on this phrase: "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech,..."
No wiggle room there...'no law.'

Not 'just a few laws'....or 'shouldn't abridge'.....because the Founders had no intention of forming a government based on 'whatever government says, goes.'




2. OK...here is the problem. An argument can be made that there are certain acceptable limits.... Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. pretty much nailed it with the 'no shouting fire' comment.
But.... once the camel has his nose under the tent, human being do what they do best: rationalize. They make reasonable arguments increasing, more and more, the things government won't/shouldn't allow to be said.


a. Kind of like the apocryphal example of the frog in cold water...
" There's an old folk warning that if you throw a frog in boiling water he will quickly jump out. But if you put a frog in a pan of cold water and raise the temperature ever so slowly, the gradual warming will make the frog dozehappily . . .in fact, the frog will eventually cook to death, without ever waking up."
snopes.com Slow Boiled Frog



Regulating speech to any degree is raising the temperature on the American electorate: how much of the 'heat' can we stand, before we're not America any longer?
How much 'regulation' of free speech?

And who benefits from said 'regulation'???
Have you noticed which party is regularly behind said 'regulation'?




3. So....what value is the first amendment..... "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech,..." ?
Answer: we have to stop well before we reach the boiling point....after all....who really suffers from luke warm water?


Every law, regulation, order, mandate, code, dictum, ordinance, should be held up to the specific language "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech,..."




4. As Supreme Court Chief Justice Rehnquist so correctly said:
" Once we have abandoned the idea that the authority of the courts to declare laws unconstitutional is somehow tied to the language of the Constitution that the people adopted, a judiciary exercising the power of judicial review appears in a quite different light."
WILLIAM H. REHNQUIST
http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol29_No2_Rehnquist.pdf


(Justice Rehnquist was not of the party under discussion here.....)

Republicans are book burners. The only free speech they want it hate speech.

Republican Book Burners Politics Plus

Yawn when has that happened in this century? God damn stupid.propaganda fool, ya do know us that live in the south all have indoor plumbing and 50 inch plus boob tubes

 

[PaintMyHouse]

What we're talking about is the right oh the Waltons and the Kochs t to buy favorable candidates and legislation.with unlimited campaign contributions.

Because, using a strict interpretation of the Constitution, we know our founders assumed that money is speech.

Right on cue another far left drone comment not based on reality..

Another right winger trapped in hypocrisy. Automatically took the side of the OP without realizing it was the opposite of Koshology. Oops if we follow the PC idea in the OP kiddy porn has to be accepted and allowed. Well no, Koshology allows for selected exceptions. Koshology experts will determine when the PC interpretation of the constitution can be ignored. We will form a panel or court and call it KSCOTUS.

And another far left drone that does not only understand the OP, but does not understand the Constitution..

Tell us in your own words what point the OP is trying to make. What is she trying to 'teach' us about the 1st Amendment.

Then you can tell us in your own words why you've figured out she's wrong.

See the far left tells me that I must tell the OP she is wrong because this far left drone is upset because child porn is illegal..

Why don't you just answer his question like a man for once? How can something be outlawed when nothing is supposed to be outlawed? Don't focus on CP, instead try inciting a riot, fighting words, obscenity laws, or threatening to kill the President, all of which are ILLEGAL. Now, how can that be eh?

 

[NYcarbineer]

No 'wiggle room'?

Are laws against child pornography unconstitutional? They can abridge freedom of speech, expression, the press.

I'm sure soon the liberals will make child pornography legal. Your party already supports incest.

Is the OP right or wrong? Are laws against child porn unconstitutional. She's implying they are.

We as a society as a whole has a job to protect our children, no matter how you twist and turn a law.

You're desperately avoiding the OP's claim. Is she right or wrong? She's claiming that what you call our job to protect children is unconstitutional if it in any way whatsoever violates the literal text of the 1st Amendment.

Why are you arguing with me instead of her?

NYLiar:

Please quote me instead of putting your usual dishonest Leftist spin on my posts.

With appreciation.....

and so on and so forth....

I'll be happy to. The conclusion you drew after weighing the issue:

"Every law, regulation, order, mandate, code, dictum, ordinance, should be held up to the specific language "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech,..."

That position, strictly applied, makes laws against child porn unconstitutional.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

For those needing an education, like the OP: The Limits Of First Amendment Protection Casebriefs

 

[Moonglow]

I don't deny the fact that exceptional people built this nation. That is without question. I'm proud of that. However, this idea that Americans of today are more exceptional than other people in this world is such non sense. Stupid, entitled, materialistic, and arrogant is what Americans are.

My god, just look at the Tea Party. There are foreigners who admire America, but when they look at the Tea Party, they just scoff or laugh. Tea baggers, in terms of intelligence, are much stupider than the average person the world over. They are also selfish, arrogant and racist. I mean this is the movement who bitches about government spending but also insists on ridiculous tax cuts. How can you respect people who don't understand the concept of revenue?

And yes, I do think there are some great Americans living today. I just don't think being American has anything to do with it.

In terms of citizens, America is not at all superior to the rest of the world. Let's stop pretending that it is.

1. Our first lesson today involves the nexus of grammar and of civics. The lesson goes beyond syntax, the arrangement of words and phrases to create well-formed sentences in a language, and centers on why, out of all the choices, particular words are used.

Begin with alpha and omega of America, the Constitution, and, perhaps, the best know portion of the Constitution, the first amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
First Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia


And focus like a laser on this phrase: "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech,..."
No wiggle room there...'no law.'

Not 'just a few laws'....or 'shouldn't abridge'.....because the Founders had no intention of forming a government based on 'whatever government says, goes.'




2. OK...here is the problem. An argument can be made that there are certain acceptable limits.... Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. pretty much nailed it with the 'no shouting fire' comment.
But.... once the camel has his nose under the tent, human being do what they do best: rationalize. They make reasonable arguments increasing, more and more, the things government won't/shouldn't allow to be said.


a. Kind of like the apocryphal example of the frog in cold water...
" There's an old folk warning that if you throw a frog in boiling water he will quickly jump out. But if you put a frog in a pan of cold water and raise the temperature ever so slowly, the gradual warming will make the frog dozehappily . . .in fact, the frog will eventually cook to death, without ever waking up."
snopes.com Slow Boiled Frog



Regulating speech to any degree is raising the temperature on the American electorate: how much of the 'heat' can we stand, before we're not America any longer?
How much 'regulation' of free speech?

And who benefits from said 'regulation'???
Have you noticed which party is regularly behind said 'regulation'?




3. So....what value is the first amendment..... "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech,..." ?
Answer: we have to stop well before we reach the boiling point....after all....who really suffers from luke warm water?


Every law, regulation, order, mandate, code, dictum, ordinance, should be held up to the specific language "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech,..."




4. As Supreme Court Chief Justice Rehnquist so correctly said:
" Once we have abandoned the idea that the authority of the courts to declare laws unconstitutional is somehow tied to the language of the Constitution that the people adopted, a judiciary exercising the power of judicial review appears in a quite different light."
WILLIAM H. REHNQUIST
http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol29_No2_Rehnquist.pdf


(Justice Rehnquist was not of the party under discussion here.....)

Republicans are book burners. The only free speech they want it hate speech.

Republican Book Burners Politics Plus

Yawn when has that happened in this century? God damn stupid.propaganda fool, ya do know us that live in the south all have indoor plumbing and 50 inch plus boob tubes

I know of a few that don't....

 

[PoliticalChic]

What we're talking about is the right oh the Waltons and the Kochs t to buy favorable candidates and legislation.with unlimited campaign contributions.

Because, using a strict interpretation of the Constitution, we know our founders assumed that money is speech.

"...the Waltons and the Kochs t to buy favorable candidates and legislation.with unlimited campaign contributions."

No....we're talking about the Leftists using the courts to restrict the speech guaranteed by the Constitution.

Coulter:

1. If liberals could trust the voters, they wouldn’t need the Court to invent ludicrous ‘constitutional rights’ for them in the first place.
2. The only limit on liberal insanity in this country is how many issues liberals can get before a court…A lot is at stake for liberals with the court. If they lose a liberal vote, they will be forced t fight political battles through a messy little system know as ‘democracy.’
3. When conservative judges strike down laws, it’s because of what’s in the Constitution. When liberal judges strike down laws (or impose new laws, such as tax increases), it’s because of what’s in the New York Times.

 

[paperview]

You keep proving that the far left does not understand the Constitution..

I understand the Constitution to mean that it is not unconstitutional to pass laws against child pornography,

the language of the 1st Amendment notwithstanding.

Am I right or wrong?

You are a far left drone that is upset that child porn in illegal.

If that is the case you want to make why put people away for murder? or for domestic violence? after all they were just expressing themselves right?

Try to be reasonable for once in your life. I'm not the one arguing that child porn laws are unconstitutional. The OP is strongly implying they are because they abridge free speech and freedom of the press.

Why don't reread the OP and see if I'm not correct.

The irony of the "Try to be reasonable for once in your life." from a far left drone..

Yes you are upset that child porn is illegal and that you blazed into the thread running the standard far left narrative.

And your latest post shows that you do not understand the OP by the far left programming that you run on..

Where did I say I was upset child porn was illegal?

I said just the opposite. Can you grow up just a little and learn to be reasonable?

I doubt it.

Has the OP come back yet and defended her stupid premise of a thread?

 

[Wyatt earp]

No 'wiggle room'?

Are laws against child pornography unconstitutional? They can abridge freedom of speech, expression, the press.

I'm sure soon the liberals will make child pornography legal. Your party already supports incest.

Is the OP right or wrong? Are laws against child porn unconstitutional. She's implying they are.

We as a society as a whole has a job to protect our children, no matter how you twist and turn a law.

You're desperately avoiding the OP's claim. Is she right or wrong? She's claiming that what you call our job to protect children is unconstitutional if it in any way whatsoever violates the literal text of the 1st Amendment.

Why are you arguing with me instead of her?

NYLiar:

Please quote me instead of putting your usual dishonest Leftist spin on my posts.

With appreciation.....

and so on and so forth....

She just hates you because your a female Asian conservative smart Woman

 

[NYcarbineer]

I understand the Constitution to mean that it is not unconstitutional to pass laws against child pornography,

the language of the 1st Amendment notwithstanding.

Am I right or wrong?

You are a far left drone that is upset that child porn in illegal.

If that is the case you want to make why put people away for murder? or for domestic violence? after all they were just expressing themselves right?

Try to be reasonable for once in your life. I'm not the one arguing that child porn laws are unconstitutional. The OP is strongly implying they are because they abridge free speech and freedom of the press.

Why don't reread the OP and see if I'm not correct.

The irony of the "Try to be reasonable for once in your life." from a far left drone..

Yes you are upset that child porn is illegal and that you blazed into the thread running the standard far left narrative.

And your latest post shows that you do not understand the OP by the far left programming that you run on..

Where did I say I was upset child porn was illegal?

I said just the opposite. Can you grow up just a little and learn to be reasonable?

I doubt it.

Has the OP come back yet and defended her stupid premise of a thread?

She came back to accuse me of lying about her position.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

I'll be happy to. The conclusion you drew after weighing the issue:

"Every law, regulation, order, mandate, code, dictum, ordinance, should be held up to the specific language "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech,..."

That position, strictly applied, makes laws against child porn unconstitutional.

That it does. Which means the OP is dead wrong, yet again, and reality wins, yet again.

 

[BlindBoo]

What we're talking about is the right oh the Waltons and the Kochs t to buy favorable candidates and legislation.with unlimited campaign contributions.

Because, using a strict interpretation of the Constitution, we know our founders assumed that money is speech.

Right on cue another far left drone comment not based on reality..

Another right winger trapped in hypocrisy. Automatically took the side of the OP without realizing it was the opposite of Koshology. Oops if we follow the PC idea in the OP kiddy porn has to be accepted and allowed. Well no, Koshology allows for selected exceptions. Koshology experts will determine when the PC interpretation of the constitution can be ignored. We will form a panel or court and call it KSCOTUS.

And another far left drone that does not only understand the OP, but does not understand the Constitution..

Tell us in your own words what point the OP is trying to make. What is she trying to 'teach' us about the 1st Amendment.

Then you can tell us in your own words why you've figured out she's wrong.

See the far left tells me that I must tell the OP she is wrong because this far left drone is upset because child porn is illegal..

But you are a known liar so.......

 

[PoliticalChic]

What we're talking about is the right oh the Waltons and the Kochs t to buy favorable candidates and legislation.with unlimited campaign contributions.

Because, using a strict interpretation of the Constitution, we know our founders assumed that money is speech.

I see the HYPOCRISY of the Progressive left is still alive and well!

This message,,cut it also....

I see you've stumbled on a now method of increasing your post-total.

And, this one doesn't require any thinking, either!

 

[NYcarbineer]

I'm sure soon the liberals will make child pornography legal. Your party already supports incest.

Is the OP right or wrong? Are laws against child porn unconstitutional. She's implying they are.

We as a society as a whole has a job to protect our children, no matter how you twist and turn a law.

You're desperately avoiding the OP's claim. Is she right or wrong? She's claiming that what you call our job to protect children is unconstitutional if it in any way whatsoever violates the literal text of the 1st Amendment.

Why are you arguing with me instead of her?

NYLiar:

Please quote me instead of putting your usual dishonest Leftist spin on my posts.

With appreciation.....

and so on and so forth....

She just hates you because your a female Asian conservative smart Woman

Feel free to show anywhere I misrepresented her position. You can start with the above where I quoted her.