White-hating racists get Stormfront booted off the internet ! FIRST AMENMENT IS DEAD

[Humorme]

I think in the future those who want to advance the cause of white people would be well advised to avoid strategies that put them at risk of being convicted of criminal acts and, more importantly, avoid the toxic and self destructive strategy of blunt and confrontational verbiage.

Thanks for proving you're a liberal trying to talk conservatives into not fighting back.

That IS a dumbass post. Never assume.

If I were a liberal, I'd stand up and proclaim it. If I were a conservative, I'd admit it. However, I have my own ideas and they don't fit well with the assumed platforms of "liberals and conservatives."

This much I will promise you: I'm a hell of a lot more effective at what I do compared to you. AND, NOBODY ever spent a night in jail or got convicted of a crime for taking my advice.

 

[Humorme]

There is something I love about that argument. It cannot stand scrutiny.

If the First Amendment does not guarantee access to someone else's property, tell me how a gay couple has the right to force a private business to make a cake for a gay wedding.

Where, may I ask are the baker's rights?

When it's convenient, some people argue that whites have no rights. But, when the other side of the coin is presented, whites are somehow locked out on the SAME grounds the whites used when they tried to protect themselves. Funny how that works.

Not funny at all. Stormfront was dropped because they violated the terms of service according to their web host. What terms of service did the gay couple violate to warrant not having a cake baked for them?

The baker's terms of service is that he didn't do cakes for gay couples.

You do understand the difference between a person's sexual preference and ideology, don't you? Being gay is not discriminatory. Refusing service because a patron is gay is in fact discrimination. Your argument has been defeated repeatedly. Why do you still find it to be valid?

I find it valid as it has never been defeated. You act like people are below you when I've stipulated to the legal differences between the two acts. You obviously aren't reading the posts, just cherry picking and trying to flame me... to YOUR detriment.

Your detriment has been shown repeatedly in the poorly thought out and sophomoric arguments you've presented. Often convoluted and lacking in experience.

The more you post, the dumber you sound. I'll match resumes' with you any damn day of the week. Lacking in experience? You wish.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

[
You're out of your mind. Hutch Starskey was not in a position to censor Stormfront. Only Stormfront was in a position to censor themselves by violating the terms of service they agreed to with Network Solutions, LLC.

Why can't bakers say the same. "We have a policy against serving faggots so please leave".

Answer that, hater.

 

[OffensivelyOpenMinded]

[
You're out of your mind. Hutch Starskey was not in a position to censor Stormfront. Only Stormfront was in a position to censor themselves by violating the terms of service they agreed to with Network Solutions, LLC.

Why can't bakers say the same. "We have a policy against serving faggots so please leave".

Answer that, hater.

Because butt pirates are special.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

So why do we allow websites that openly advocate for affirmative action, the govt mandated persecution of white men and the biggest hate crime in america.

Stormfront, internet’s longest-running white supremacist site, goes offline

aug 26 2017 Stormfront, one of the internet’s oldest and most popular white supremacist sites, has been booted off its web address of more than two decades amid a crackdown against hate sites.

The address Stormfront.org went dark on Friday, and publicly available information current lists its domain status as “under hold,” a category reserved for websites under legal dispute or slated for deletion, the USA Today network first reported.

The Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, a D.C.-based nonprofit group, said it was behind the effort and had successfully booted the website from its domain of 22 years by raising its concerns with Stormfront’s registrar, Network Solutions LLC, and its parent company, Web.com.

“Their website is a vehicle used to promote racially-motivated violence and hate,” Kristen Clarke, the committee’s executive director, said in a statement. “Following our efforts, Network Solutions has pulled the site. We are working across the country to combat the spread of hate crimes.”

I'm sure others have tried once again to school you in the reasons why this is not a firt amendment issue but beyond that --

THAT'S REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY GOOD NEWS!!!

Thanks for sharing this. Seriously. You made my day with this news.

Oh yeah, and go fuk yourself.

 

[Baron]

So why do we allow websites that openly advocate for affirmative action, the govt mandated persecution of white men and the biggest hate crime in america.

The problem is whites are to gullible and do not fight for their rights. Non-whites perform the white genocide and punish whites for withstanding it.

 

[EverCurious]

Again be informed as to what you are talking about. IT IS NOT THEIR HOST, THEIR DOMAIN NAME WAS TAKEN. ~sigh~ maybe it'll get through to you hard headed ones if I caps? This is not a simple case of oh the host cut them off - this is a case of until March 2017 doing this was ******* illegal because the US regulated DNS (domain name system) as a utility (and thus the entire DNS system fell under 1st amendment protection for the entire world.) We just hosed the internet, possibly one of the worst decisions for free speech the US has ever made...


Related - Those who follow my postings might recall my discussion of starting up an internet 2.0. An example - Stormfront members bypass domain seizure to access banned neo-Nazi forums

 

[EverCurious]

Perhaps a trainer course would help you folks understand how terrible this can become?

So lets go back to the late 80s, before the internet. Back then we just had BBS's (Bulletin Board Systems), the precursor to the internet or WWW (World Wide Web). Basically you logged into someones computer (a beefy computer called a server) and you could do a lot of the stuff the modern internet can do - forums, games, chatting, and email with everyone on that particular server. BBS's are kind of like the private networks you might use at work, or if you have your computers connected to each other at home. It was cool no doubt, however, it was private, secular, and localized.

The internet came about as those individual servers connected to each other, and more and more and more until the entire world was connected (via the DNS) This revolution opened the doors to global communication, global business, and the massive inter-connectivity and knowledge sharing we have today. I'm a total geek so I might be biased, but I think the evolution of the Internet is one of the top achievements of mankind simply because of what it's allowed us to do. I remember the days before and the days after, it was like the entire planet suddenly shrunk to the size of my computer - for a person like me who craves knowledge it was a dream come true, instantly I had access to not just the hard copies at the local library, not just a local server of fellow Anchorage residents, or occasionally a school hosted server for the state of Alaska, or if I paid the long distance charges maybe a major portal in some lower 48 city, but the entire ******* world opened up. I was astounded, amazed, and frankly lost for many, many months exploring the far corners and talking to people I would /never/ have known existed; learning their issues, their fears, their goals. For me, I simultaneously realized both how similar, and how different, we all are. Rambling...

Why is this bad? Well, the DNS connects us together, it is the spine of the internet. DNS management is now in the hands of a global conglomerate and it's no longer protected by the US's dedication to freedom of ideas, beliefs, speech, etc. Sounds fine and dandy to you hmm? That's just because the other nations haven't yet realized what they can now do. The internet is officially for sale. PC police just fired the first shot, but the EU and US ain't going to win the war, guaranteed, we don't have the numbers... Wait until China raises their voice against "hostile speech" and let me know how you like China's version of the web. Wait until India starts dictating what should be allowed to be said on the web. It's only a matter of time before the registry folks (Network Solutions, Tucows, and a couple others) fall into the hands of the highest bidder - and then we'll all be reading whatever they want us to read, and our mouths taped because they don't like it when the US puts tariffs on their exports so they "censor" (aka delete) anyone who talks about it. You thought Russia interfered with our elections? HAHAHA just wait...

 

[Humorme]

[
You're out of your mind. Hutch Starskey was not in a position to censor Stormfront. Only Stormfront was in a position to censor themselves by violating the terms of service they agreed to with Network Solutions, LLC.

Why can't bakers say the same. "We have a policy against serving faggots so please leave".

Answer that, hater.

The left cannot and will not answer you honestly. All they see is that two different laws can be applied, but the intent and the the result are the same.

Whether you pass one law to supposedly apply to "discrimination" OR you pass a law forcing an individual into an adhesion contract, the outcome is the same: they both exist to enforce public policy.

Did YOU get to vote on public policy? I didn't. Is it in the Constitution? While the left rages over the offenses of public policy, they strain at the meaning of the Preamble to the Constitution.

 

[Harry Dresden]

You idiots who think blacks are mentally equal to whites need to explain why

1. Blacks come in last in all standardized tests. Asians do fine on all the tests so it's not due to cultural bias in the tests..

2. Africa is by far the poorest and most backward continent on the planet. All of black africa is now controlled by blacks and has been for decades so it's not due to racism.

3. No black has ever won a Science Nobel Prize unless you count one in 1979 for the semi-science of economics. They have won many nobels in non-brain fields like Peace and also in Literature so it is not due to racism.

4. Out of 1552 chess grandmasters in the world, only THREE are black.

out of 25,000 posters on this board you are one of the top 3 dumbasses....

You sure it isn't one person with three socks?

It seems to me, his posts, Tank's, and McRacist's post seem awfully damn similar.

yea they do seem similar....

 

[ShootSpeeders]

The problem is whites are too gullible and do not fight for their rights. Non-whites perform the white genocide and punish whites for withstanding it.

Whites are the biggest cowards in history. We are told that the brazen racism of affirmative action is actually all about FIGHTING RACISM, and most whites accept that!!!!

 

[Humorme]

So why do we allow websites that openly advocate for affirmative action, the govt mandated persecution of white men and the biggest hate crime in america.

The problem is whites are to gullible and do not fight for their rights. Non-whites perform the white genocide and punish whites for withstanding it.

Bitching about the problem is not fighting for your Rights

Posting daily on a discussion board is not fighting for your Rights

Marching in the streets is not fighting for your Rights

Making an ass out of yourself is not fighting for your Rights.

What kind of perception do you really think the average person in mainstream gets when your average "white rights advocate" is a snaggled toothed redneck with matted hair, multiple tattoos, a two day growth of whiskers with a cigarette in his mouth and wearing nazi garb yelling something like let's go out an kill us a bunch of (expletive deleted)???

Does shouting a lot of bad words - like the seven words that used to be banned on tv help you recruit? Is that fighting for your Rights?

Let me tell you a little secret about this war that most white racists don't understand. They reject it, but in a few years many end up on the left simply because they don't understand this:

You can never advance yourself on the back of another man. An old Tarzan flick once had tribal chiefs testing Tarzan. One of their questions was: If you encountered an enemy after a thousand mile journey, what ONE thing would you make sure of? Tarzan answered: "I'd make sure the enemy traveled the thousand miles."

Doesn't it strike you as odd that in every encounter over the years, the left has won? I won't take you all through history via Memory Lane, but look at the fight over the Confederate flag. The whites fought that war the same, identical way they fought the battle over statues, monuments, and memorials. Both times they lost. And, it wasn't the first time. Adding insult to injury, they not only lose the battle they were fighting, but the left gets additional considerations... like here in Georgia where they are not only taking down Confederate statues, but they put a statue of Martin Luther King, Jr. AND a Republican Senator from Georgia wants a Resolution condemning white supremacy (sic), the KKK, nazis, white nationalists, etc.

Antifa, BLM, the SPLC, ADL, NAACP, SCLC, etc. are all partying in the streets.

How many times do the white activists have to get their asses kicked before they start thinking, well gee - we need a new strategy???

 

[Synthaholic]

They don't play chess. Ever play one in a game of Umfofo or Bunga Bunga?

I know blacks don't play chess. Just like they avoid physics and engineering and anything that requires them to think. Blacks sing and dance and play sports. They put on shows for white ppl.

Neil deGrasse Tyson says "hi". He also says "**** you".

 

[Faun]

A privately owned website provider has decided they don't want to be associated with the trash that populated stormfront. The members of that group still have freedom of speech. But the 1st amendment does not guarantee access to someone else's property.

There is something I love about that argument. It cannot stand scrutiny.

If the First Amendment does not guarantee access to someone else's property, tell me how a gay couple has the right to force a private business to make a cake for a gay wedding.

Where, may I ask are the baker's rights?

When it's convenient, some people argue that whites have no rights. But, when the other side of the coin is presented, whites are somehow locked out on the SAME grounds the whites used when they tried to protect themselves. Funny how that works.

If the First Amendment does not guarantee access to someone else's property, tell me how a gay couple has the right to force a private business to make a cake for a gay wedding.

Tell me WITF cake has anything to do with the 1st amd. You just conflated and convoluted a simple point into nonsense.

The First Amendment protects against there being a state religion. Forcing someone in the private sector to violate their religious conscience violates the so - called "separation of church and state" the left babbles on about.

There's nothing in the Bible that states a baker can't bake a cake for a homosexual.

 

[Faun]

[
You're out of your mind. Hutch Starskey was not in a position to censor Stormfront. Only Stormfront was in a position to censor themselves by violating the terms of service they agreed to with Network Solutions, LLC.

Why can't bakers say the same. "We have a policy against serving faggots so please leave".

Answer that, hater.

Already answered. For the same reason a black baker can't refuse to bake you a cake.

 

[WinterBorn]

[
You're out of your mind. Hutch Starskey was not in a position to censor Stormfront. Only Stormfront was in a position to censor themselves by violating the terms of service they agreed to with Network Solutions, LLC.

Why can't bakers say the same. "We have a policy against serving faggots so please leave".

Answer that, hater.

Already answered. For the same reason a black baker can't refuse to bake you a cake.

But the same bakers that refused to bake a cake for the gay couple has baked plenty for peoples 2nd or 3rd marriage. And, according to the Bible, that is adultery. And adultery made the Big 10 list. But that is apparently ok, as long as they are not gay.

 

[Faun]

[
You're out of your mind. Hutch Starskey was not in a position to censor Stormfront. Only Stormfront was in a position to censor themselves by violating the terms of service they agreed to with Network Solutions, LLC.

Why can't bakers say the same. "We have a policy against serving faggots so please leave".

Answer that, hater.

Already answered. For the same reason a black baker can't refuse to bake you a cake.

But the same bakers that refused to bake a cake for the gay couple has baked plenty for peoples 2nd or 3rd marriage. And, according to the Bible, that is adultery. And adultery made the Big 10 list. But that is apparently ok, as long as they are not gay.

Selective abominations.

 

[Humorme]

A privately owned website provider has decided they don't want to be associated with the trash that populated stormfront. The members of that group still have freedom of speech. But the 1st amendment does not guarantee access to someone else's property.

There is something I love about that argument. It cannot stand scrutiny.

If the First Amendment does not guarantee access to someone else's property, tell me how a gay couple has the right to force a private business to make a cake for a gay wedding.

Where, may I ask are the baker's rights?

When it's convenient, some people argue that whites have no rights. But, when the other side of the coin is presented, whites are somehow locked out on the SAME grounds the whites used when they tried to protect themselves. Funny how that works.

If the First Amendment does not guarantee access to someone else's property, tell me how a gay couple has the right to force a private business to make a cake for a gay wedding.

Tell me WITF cake has anything to do with the 1st amd. You just conflated and convoluted a simple point into nonsense.

The First Amendment protects against there being a state religion. Forcing someone in the private sector to violate their religious conscience violates the so - called "separation of church and state" the left babbles on about.

There's nothing in the Bible that states a baker can't bake a cake for a homosexual.

I doubt that you are very well aware of God's laws. So you won't try to argue out of ignorance, this link is just for you:

https://sedm.org/LibertyU/BibleLawCourse.pdf

 

[Humorme]

[
You're out of your mind. Hutch Starskey was not in a position to censor Stormfront. Only Stormfront was in a position to censor themselves by violating the terms of service they agreed to with Network Solutions, LLC.

Why can't bakers say the same. "We have a policy against serving faggots so please leave".

Answer that, hater.

Already answered. For the same reason a black baker can't refuse to bake you a cake.

But the same bakers that refused to bake a cake for the gay couple has baked plenty for peoples 2nd or 3rd marriage. And, according to the Bible, that is adultery. And adultery made the Big 10 list. But that is apparently ok, as long as they are not gay.

You obviously don't read the Bible. If you are not the at fault party in a divorce action, the law against adultery does not apply.

"But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace."

(See I Corinthians 7: 14 thru 16)

If you're going to argue Bible laws, you too need to read the course:

https://sedm.org/LibertyU/BibleLawCourse.pdf

 

[WinterBorn]

[
You're out of your mind. Hutch Starskey was not in a position to censor Stormfront. Only Stormfront was in a position to censor themselves by violating the terms of service they agreed to with Network Solutions, LLC.

Why can't bakers say the same. "We have a policy against serving faggots so please leave".

Answer that, hater.

Already answered. For the same reason a black baker can't refuse to bake you a cake.

But the same bakers that refused to bake a cake for the gay couple has baked plenty for peoples 2nd or 3rd marriage. And, according to the Bible, that is adultery. And adultery made the Big 10 list. But that is apparently ok, as long as they are not gay.

You obviously don't read the Bible. If you are not the at fault party in a divorce action, the law against adultery does not apply.

"But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace."

(See I Corinthians 7: 14 thru 16)

If you're going to argue Bible laws, you too need to read the course:

https://sedm.org/LibertyU/BibleLawCourse.pdf

Luke 16:18 “Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery"

Matthew 19:9 "And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.”

Mark 10:12 "And if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.”

Seems pretty cut & dried to me. But I guess that wouldn't suit some people.