The Value of Free Speech

[Quantum Windbag]

Anyone threatening violence towards another person or their property because of their opinion are nut cases. Their career or livelihood is fair game if it serves the public and the public doesn't appreciate the opinion.

Destroying someone's career isn't violence?

No. Is preaching racism violence?

There are documented cases of people losing their jobs because someone decided to threaten them at their place of work. For some reason, the law actually makes a business culpable for not taking steps to protect their customers and employees even if the threat was the result of a dispute that they had no control over. This as led to the activists getting people fired because they didn't like their opinion and threatening them at work. Yet you have no problem with this.

Your position is that threatening violence is wrong, but actually doing it isn't. How the **** does that work in your deluded mind?

Nice deflection, by the way, but I didn't bite.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

My declaration is not to kill the 1rst amendment. My declaration is to make people serving the public pay for ignorant racist remarks. They can say what they want but the better not cry about the consequences.

Another beauty by your boy Trent Lott

When are you going to destroy the career of Jesse Jackson and Chris Mathews? How about Joe Biden?

Or is it only racist when the wrong side says it?

I wouldn't do anything personally. Its a group effort not just one person. Its the court of public opinion. Until they say or do something that enough people deem worthy of destroying them for they will continue to have a platform.

I get it, you are fine with racism as long as it isn't directed at you.

Then again, you are a racist yourself, so I can see why you prefer selective enforcement of your principles.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Why is it okay for a racist/bigot/misogynist etc to destroy someones livelihood or reputation but its evil when someone does it back to them?

Why is it OK for a Democrat to do it but wrong when a Republican does it?

Its not. If a Dem is doing something wrong get your boys out there to get together and bring him down. You have every opportunity to exercise your 1rst amendment rights. If you notice I did not specify a party.

That isn't how it works, asshole. I don't believe in punishing people for what they say. Come to think of it, nobody that agrees with me about free speech believes in that. You are the asshole that thinks speech should be controlled, so live up to your ideals, or admit you are actually a hypocritical lying sack of shit racist scumbag.

 

[Asclepias]

Assuming your intelligence, Asclepias, would be a herculean task.

Interestingly enough... Strom Thurmond was originally a Democrat, so was Trent Lott. What Democrats continue to ignore is their critical role in endearing racial animosity in this country. Being the PC police on race is something akin for them trying to make up for the guilt they have as being the party who spawned the Ku Klux Klan. Essentially saying you don't have the right to speak your mind unless you wish to be seen as a racist.

Trent Lott did not become a Republican until 1972 and Strom Thrumond switched immediately after the Civil Rights act. One was essentially trying to preserve the only way of life he knew, and the other was demoted and accosted for wishing him a happy. By no means am I suggesting that I support their ideals, but this is a critical aspect of their First Amendment speech. Can a man not wish someone who may have supported segregationist ideals a happy birthday? Is this not taking the political correctness a bit too far?

Why you guys think saying that Dems used to be the racist party is something profound or enlightening is beyond me. The Democratic party used to be todays version of the Republican party but more open in their racism. Storm actually became a Dixiecrat which was the most racist portion of the Democratic party. All the racists moved to the Republican party after the Civil Rights Act was passed. I guess I should cry because he wanted to preserve Jim Crow huh?

I have no problem with Lott wishing him happy birthday, however when he evoked Stroms racist run for POTUS that was an issue. He could have spoken as to how Strom evolved and changed his mind but instead chose the racist platform Strom embraced at the time to praise. I think he was rightly put down for it. As a politician responsible for decision making for all Americans there is no room for that type of opinion to be espoused.

Only Strom Thurmond defected to the Republican Party, no others defected. So you are playing right in to the lie that a large number of Republicans defected, and if you think that Nixon's Southern strategy worked, it didn't.

I don't care what "version" the Democratic party is, it's still the Democratic party. They are just as aware of their racist past as we are. They have not atoned for their past sins, instead they are now magnifying them by widening the racial divide between white and black. The election of a black president has even further widened this gap into a crevasse, since anyone who would dare criticize him are excoriated and berated as racists--- when all they are doing is criticizing him the same way (yes the exact same way) they would a white president. Essentially exercising their First Amendment right to address a grievance with their government. They try to induce some sort of guilt trip on whites, something they call "white guilt." But they need first to deal with the hypocrisy they hold in their hearts before lecturing anyone on race.

Democrats seem to want the minority to succeed over anyone else, to appease their racial guilt. Here, I want to show you a thread I wrote earlier this year here, it explains in precise detail the demons the Democrats have yet to exorcise:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/292277-real-racism-a-history-of-the-democratic-party.html

Democrats fail to see that there is no racism in our displeasure, we don't hate him for his skin color, we dislike him because of his political stances and actions as a sitting president. But we will not be silenced in our opposition, freedom of speech is a freedom we take seriously and we won't have the likes of the politically correct crowd trampling on them or coming after us for exercising it.

Large numbers did switch parties because of the Civil Rights Act. I didn't say they switched the day after. The KKK and others of their ilk also switched.

I dont get how you say they havent "atoned for their past sins". They passed the Civil Rights Act. Were you asleep in history class? I dont think Democratic policies are always correct but they for sure do champion those that are discriminated against. I look at it as the lesser of 2 evils. As long as I keep that clear in my head i'm ok. I will check out your post.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Why you guys think saying that Dems used to be the racist party is something profound or enlightening is beyond me. The Democratic party used to be todays version of the Republican party but more open in their racism. Storm actually became a Dixiecrat which was the most racist portion of the Democratic party. All the racists moved to the Republican party after the Civil Rights Act was passed. I guess I should cry because he wanted to preserve Jim Crow huh?

I have no problem with Lott wishing him happy birthday, however when he evoked Stroms racist run for POTUS that was an issue. He could have spoken as to how Strom evolved and changed his mind but instead chose the racist platform Strom embraced at the time to praise. I think he was rightly put down for it. As a politician responsible for decision making for all Americans there is no room for that type of opinion to be espoused.

There is no used to be about it.

Do you care to address Lotts poor choice of comments while wishing Strom happy birthday? I sort of figured you would avoid it so never mind.

Can you point to any place where I ever said that people should be punished for what they say? Until you do, stop trying to hold me to a standard I do not have.

 

[Asclepias]

Destroying someone's career isn't violence?

No. Is preaching racism violence?

There are documented cases of people losing their jobs because someone decided to threaten them at their place of work. For some reason, the law actually makes a business culpable for not taking steps to protect their customers and employees even if the threat was the result of a dispute that they had no control over. This as led to the activists getting people fired because they didn't like their opinion and threatening them at work. Yet you have no problem with this.

Your position is that threatening violence is wrong, but actually doing it isn't. How the **** does that work in your deluded mind?

Nice deflection, by the way, but I didn't bite.

How are you going to tell me my position without asking!!?? Where did I deflect? Cant you read?.

 

[Asclepias]

When are you going to destroy the career of Jesse Jackson and Chris Mathews? How about Joe Biden?

Or is it only racist when the wrong side says it?

I wouldn't do anything personally. Its a group effort not just one person. Its the court of public opinion. Until they say or do something that enough people deem worthy of destroying them for they will continue to have a platform.

I get it, you are fine with racism as long as it isn't directed at you.

Then again, you are a racist yourself, so I can see why you prefer selective enforcement of your principles.

I dont like any racism. I understand its inherent however. What you may think is racist from Jesse Jackson doesnt apply with Lott though. Is that correct?

 

[Asclepias]

Why is it OK for a Democrat to do it but wrong when a Republican does it?

Its not. If a Dem is doing something wrong get your boys out there to get together and bring him down. You have every opportunity to exercise your 1rst amendment rights. If you notice I did not specify a party.

That isn't how it works, asshole. I don't believe in punishing people for what they say. Come to think of it, nobody that agrees with me about free speech believes in that. You are the asshole that thinks speech should be controlled, so live up to your ideals, or admit you are actually a hypocritical lying sack of shit racist scumbag.

Thats why I said we have a difference of opinion. I do believe in punishing people what they say. Words have power. As an elected official or business person you shouldn't be supporting or advocating a racist position. You deserve to lose your livelihood and the faster the better.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Why you guys think saying that Dems used to be the racist party is something profound or enlightening is beyond me. The Democratic party used to be todays version of the Republican party but more open in their racism. Storm actually became a Dixiecrat which was the most racist portion of the Democratic party. All the racists moved to the Republican party after the Civil Rights Act was passed. I guess I should cry because he wanted to preserve Jim Crow huh?

I have no problem with Lott wishing him happy birthday, however when he evoked Stroms racist run for POTUS that was an issue. He could have spoken as to how Strom evolved and changed his mind but instead chose the racist platform Strom embraced at the time to praise. I think he was rightly put down for it. As a politician responsible for decision making for all Americans there is no room for that type of opinion to be espoused.

Only Strom Thurmond defected to the Republican Party, no others defected. So you are playing right in to the lie that a large number of Republicans defected, and if you think that Nixon's Southern strategy worked, it didn't.

I don't care what "version" the Democratic party is, it's still the Democratic party. They are just as aware of their racist past as we are. They have not atoned for their past sins, instead they are now magnifying them by widening the racial divide between white and black. The election of a black president has even further widened this gap into a crevasse, since anyone who would dare criticize him are excoriated and berated as racists--- when all they are doing is criticizing him the same way (yes the exact same way) they would a white president. Essentially exercising their First Amendment right to address a grievance with their government. They try to induce some sort of guilt trip on whites, something they call "white guilt." But they need first to deal with the hypocrisy they hold in their hearts before lecturing anyone on race.

Democrats seem to want the minority to succeed over anyone else, to appease their racial guilt. Here, I want to show you a thread I wrote earlier this year here, it explains in precise detail the demons the Democrats have yet to exorcise:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/292277-real-racism-a-history-of-the-democratic-party.html

Democrats fail to see that there is no racism in our displeasure, we don't hate him for his skin color, we dislike him because of his political stances and actions as a sitting president. But we will not be silenced in our opposition, freedom of speech is a freedom we take seriously and we won't have the likes of the politically correct crowd trampling on them or coming after us for exercising it.

Large numbers did switch parties because of the Civil Rights Act. I didn't say they switched the day after. The KKK and others of their ilk also switched.

I dont get how you say they havent "atoned for their past sins". They passed the Civil Rights Act. Were you asleep in history class? I dont think Democratic policies are always correct but they for sure do champion those that are discriminated against. I look at it as the lesser of 2 evils. As long as I keep that clear in my head i'm ok. I will check out your post.

They filibustered the Civil Rights act, for 57 days. It was Republican Everett Dirksen who broke the filibuster and cleared final passage. No, I am well educated in histrionics. It is you who fell asleep in history class. The last thing Democratic policies do is ensure non discrimination. In fact they do more to promote it, especially in the workplace. Minorities are given favored positions over whites, gay people are treated with more reverence than a Christian and so on.

You can remain deluded if you wish, but know that you are treading thin ice.

 

[TemplarKormac]

And Asclepias, it all boils down to this one mantra.

You never judge a man by his words, but by his actions. For actions speak louder than words.

 

[Asclepias]

And Asclepias, it all boils down to this one mantra.

You never judge a man by his words, but by his actions. For actions speak louder than words.

Too bad you can only focus on one thing at a time. i judge both.

 

[daveman]

My declaration is not to kill the 1rst amendment. My declaration is to make people serving the public pay for ignorant racist remarks. They can say what they want but the better not cry about the consequences.

I'd eagerly await your condemnation of these racist remarks, but I have a feeling I'd be waiting...well, forever.

Another beauty by your boy Trent Lott

He's right. Ever hear of Affirmative Action? It counts as racial discrimination if the victim is white, in case you didn't know.

How did you go from what I said to a list of remarks that can be taken as racist? Everyone of those comments met with some consequence. Some of the remarks I thought were racist others I didnt so i wont condemn all of them. if the people saying those things were not driven from their livelihood it is because the people that had an issue with the remarks did not protest or were very few in number. IOW they did not exercise their 1rst amendment rights.

Plainly speaking, liberals are hypocrites. They give their side a free pass for the same offences they condemn conservatives for.

AA is not racial discrimination. Its intent was to right a wrong.

What wrong? Who committed it, and how many of those are still alive?

If it was racial then the white women would not be the #1 benefactors of it.

Do you see relaxed hiring/admissions standards as a good thing? If so, why?

 

[daveman]

Why is it okay for a racist/bigot/misogynist etc to destroy someones livelihood or reputation but its evil when someone does it back to them?

Because you (kollektively) label anyone who holds views you don't like as racist/bigot/misogynist, whether or not they actually are.

The left has made those terms useless. All they mean now is "someone whose opinions I can't rationally argue against, so I will lash out emotionally with spurious charges".

I dont know what form of English you subscribe to but I still use those words in the traditional sense.

Most on the left do not.

15 Moronic Things Liberals Call Racism Since Obama Was Elected - John Hawkins - Page full

These are examples of what I said: "someone whose opinions I can't rationally argue against, so I will lash out emotionally with spurious charges".

 

[Mac1958]

.

I can't speak for anyone else, but my issue is not with the government. I don't yet see a clear trend that the federal bureaucracy is systematically attacking free speech rights.

What I do see, however, is a culture being pushed in that direction by one end of the political spectrum, and once the culture has gone far enough in that direction, the bureaucracy will follow suit.

And I strongly suspect that end of the political spectrum would be just fine with it. They will deny it until they get there, of course, because their agenda would be exposed.

Unless people who actually do believe in freedom of speech, who won't let themselves be intimidated by the PC Police, can turn the tide, baby!



.

 

[TemplarKormac]

And Asclepias, it all boils down to this one mantra.

You never judge a man by his words, but by his actions. For actions speak louder than words.

Too bad you can only focus on one thing at a time. i judge both.

I do too, but you seem to focus on words, not actions. I resent the fact that you would lie to me, Asclepias. You have clearly demonstrated a focus on acting against an opinion rather than opining against an action.

 

[daveman]

They passed the Civil Rights Act. Were you asleep in history class?

Depends. Do you mean REAL history, or liberal revisionist history?

On This Day in 1964, Democrats Filibustered the Civil Rights Act | The Gateway Pundit

June 10, 1964, was a dramatic day in the United States Senate. For the first time in its history, cloture was invoked on a civil rights bill, ending a record-breaking filibuster by Democrats that had consumed fifty-seven working days. The hero of the hour was minority leader Senator Everett McKinley Dirksen (R-Ill.).

On June 10, 1964, Democrats filibustered the Civil Rights Act.
Grand Old Partisan reported, via DANEgerus:

On this day in 1964, Everett Dirksen (R-IL), the Republican Leader in the U.S. Senate, condemned the Democrats’ 57-day filibuster against the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Leading the Democrats in their opposition to civil rights for African-Americans was Senator Robert Byrd (D-WV). Byrd, who got into politics as a recruiter for the Ku Klux Klan, spoke against the bill for fourteen straight hours. Democrats still call Robert Byrd “the conscience of the Senate.”

In his speech, Senator Dirksen called on the Democrats to end their filibuster and accept racial equality.​

 

[Foxfyre]

Its not. If a Dem is doing something wrong get your boys out there to get together and bring him down. You have every opportunity to exercise your 1rst amendment rights. If you notice I did not specify a party.

That isn't how it works, asshole. I don't believe in punishing people for what they say. Come to think of it, nobody that agrees with me about free speech believes in that. You are the asshole that thinks speech should be controlled, so live up to your ideals, or admit you are actually a hypocritical lying sack of shit racist scumbag.

Thats why I said we have a difference of opinion. I do believe in punishing people what they say. Words have power. As an elected official or business person you shouldn't be supporting or advocating a racist position. You deserve to lose your livelihood and the faster the better.

Which is exactly why I said you would dismantle the First Amendment (and therefore the purpose of the entire Constitution) in a heartbeat. The Founders risked their families, their lives, their entire fortunes to give us a Constitution that prohibits the government from punishing people for what they say, think, read, or write short of inciting to riot or depriving others of their unalienable rights. It made absolutely no distinction between the various states, no distinction between private citizens and politicians, no distinction between political parties, and no distinction between people holding polar opposite views.

Thugs bullies, wingnuts, and PC extremists who would ignore that principle and would exert their will to control the words, thoughts, etc. of those they disapprove of or with whom they disagree are not only thugs, bullies, wingnuts, and PC extremists, but they are evil.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

No. Is preaching racism violence?

There are documented cases of people losing their jobs because someone decided to threaten them at their place of work. For some reason, the law actually makes a business culpable for not taking steps to protect their customers and employees even if the threat was the result of a dispute that they had no control over. This as led to the activists getting people fired because they didn't like their opinion and threatening them at work. Yet you have no problem with this.

Your position is that threatening violence is wrong, but actually doing it isn't. How the **** does that work in your deluded mind?

Nice deflection, by the way, but I didn't bite.

How are you going to tell me my position without asking!!?? Where did I deflect? Cant you read?.

I can read, dipshit.

You have stated you believe people should be punished for their words, are you taking that back?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I wouldn't do anything personally. Its a group effort not just one person. Its the court of public opinion. Until they say or do something that enough people deem worthy of destroying them for they will continue to have a platform.

I get it, you are fine with racism as long as it isn't directed at you.

Then again, you are a racist yourself, so I can see why you prefer selective enforcement of your principles.

I dont like any racism. I understand its inherent however. What you may think is racist from Jesse Jackson doesnt apply with Lott though. Is that correct?

I know it doesn't, because Jackson is a black Democrat, and Lott isn't.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Its not. If a Dem is doing something wrong get your boys out there to get together and bring him down. You have every opportunity to exercise your 1rst amendment rights. If you notice I did not specify a party.

That isn't how it works, asshole. I don't believe in punishing people for what they say. Come to think of it, nobody that agrees with me about free speech believes in that. You are the asshole that thinks speech should be controlled, so live up to your ideals, or admit you are actually a hypocritical lying sack of shit racist scumbag.

Thats why I said we have a difference of opinion. I do believe in punishing people what they say. Words have power. As an elected official or business person you shouldn't be supporting or advocating a racist position. You deserve to lose your livelihood and the faster the better.

Yet you just tried to argue that I didn't know your position because I didn't ask.

Funny how I actually nailed it, isn't it?