Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Their current candidate supports BLM and the diversity rhetoric the left is pushing. I can’t get behind that.So? I still don’t support Marxism. Even if they want to call themselves libertarian.Then I will tell the 3rd parties what I tell the democrats and republicans. If you want me to vote for you give me a good candidate to support. Not a McCain...Not a Biden ...and definitely not a Jo Jorgensen and he support of CRT...etc.If you cared about the country you wouldn't vote for either party.
Jo Jorgensen is a she.
I am not following the whole conversation here, but Libertarians are sort of anarchists, but extremely right wing.
They believe in maximum decentralization and laissez faire capitalism.
That puts them diametrically opposed to Marxists, even though they have some similarities.
Their current candidate supports BLM and the diversity rhetoric the left is pushing. I can’t get behind that.So? I still don’t support Marxism. Even if they want to call themselves libertarian.Then I will tell the 3rd parties what I tell the democrats and republicans. If you want me to vote for you give me a good candidate to support. Not a McCain...Not a Biden ...and definitely not a Jo Jorgensen and he support of CRT...etc.If you cared about the country you wouldn't vote for either party.
Jo Jorgensen is a she.
I am not following the whole conversation here, but Libertarians are sort of anarchists, but extremely right wing.
They believe in maximum decentralization and laissez faire capitalism.
That puts them diametrically opposed to Marxists, even though they have some similarities.
Jo coming out for BLM is why I decided to support her. You support the police state and then complain about Marxism?
"Jo coming out for BLM is why I decided to support her."
You are the sort of imbecile that bodes ill for America's future:
Apparently the current Libertarian party thinks Marxism is more palpable in its. “ light “ form. I don’t though.
The alternative is Marxism. And that is the opposite of freedom. You see it right now in Seattle,Portland,Michigan,California and NY. I don’t see BLM As supporting the freedom of “ minorities” I see them brutalizing them along with whitey and burning their businesses down to promote the far left agenda and their own self promotion.Their current candidate supports BLM and the diversity rhetoric the left is pushing. I can’t get behind that.So? I still don’t support Marxism. Even if they want to call themselves libertarian.Then I will tell the 3rd parties what I tell the democrats and republicans. If you want me to vote for you give me a good candidate to support. Not a McCain...Not a Biden ...and definitely not a Jo Jorgensen and he support of CRT...etc.If you cared about the country you wouldn't vote for either party.
Jo Jorgensen is a she.
I am not following the whole conversation here, but Libertarians are sort of anarchists, but extremely right wing.
They believe in maximum decentralization and laissez faire capitalism.
That puts them diametrically opposed to Marxists, even though they have some similarities.
Why not?
The alternative is a police state, which is bad for everyone but the ruling elite.
It is not that one has to care at all about any other minority, but instead the selfish principle that no one is really safe or free unless there are guarantees for the freedom and safety of everyone.
We are all minorities, so the we have to support the safety and freedom of all other minorities if we want them to support our freedom and safety.
Their current candidate supports BLM and the diversity rhetoric the left is pushing. I can’t get behind that.So? I still don’t support Marxism. Even if they want to call themselves libertarian.Then I will tell the 3rd parties what I tell the democrats and republicans. If you want me to vote for you give me a good candidate to support. Not a McCain...Not a Biden ...and definitely not a Jo Jorgensen and he support of CRT...etc.If you cared about the country you wouldn't vote for either party.
Jo Jorgensen is a she.
I am not following the whole conversation here, but Libertarians are sort of anarchists, but extremely right wing.
They believe in maximum decentralization and laissez faire capitalism.
That puts them diametrically opposed to Marxists, even though they have some similarities.
Jo coming out for BLM is why I decided to support her. You support the police state and then complain about Marxism?
"Jo coming out for BLM is why I decided to support her."
You are the sort of imbecile that bodes ill for America's future:
Their current candidate supports BLM and the diversity rhetoric the left is pushing. I can’t get behind that.So? I still don’t support Marxism. Even if they want to call themselves libertarian.Then I will tell the 3rd parties what I tell the democrats and republicans. If you want me to vote for you give me a good candidate to support. Not a McCain...Not a Biden ...and definitely not a Jo Jorgensen and he support of CRT...etc.If you cared about the country you wouldn't vote for either party.
Jo Jorgensen is a she.
I am not following the whole conversation here, but Libertarians are sort of anarchists, but extremely right wing.
They believe in maximum decentralization and laissez faire capitalism.
That puts them diametrically opposed to Marxists, even though they have some similarities.
Jo coming out for BLM is why I decided to support her. You support the police state and then complain about Marxism?
"Jo coming out for BLM is why I decided to support her."
You are the sort of imbecile that bodes ill for America's future:
You support an authoritarian racist police state. I don't.
It doesn'tThere has been no law passed that prohibits any clergy from saying anything they want.LBJ silences religious folks.
Kagan says speech can be restricted.
Obama says books can be banned.
And the result is the acceptance of totalitarian beliefs by our youth:
"Survey Finds Disturbing Number of Students Believe Silencing Speech With Violence is Acceptable
Posted by Mike LaChance Thursday, October 1, 2020 at 10:00am
“Acceptance of using violence to stop speech or an event from occurring was at nearly 20 percent.”
Campus Reform reports:
REPORT: Disturbing number of college students justify shutting down speech with violence
Nearly one in five U.S. college students said they approve of violence in response to speech on campus in at least some instances.
A survey conducted by the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), Real Clear Education, and College Pulse asked 20,000 students at 55 colleges across the nation questions regarding free speech issues on their campuses. Students were asked whether violence is acceptable to shut down a speaker they didn’t like and if it is acceptable for students to block people from attending an event.
Acceptance of using violence to stop speech or an event from occurring was at nearly 20 percent.
One percent of students said that violence is “always” acceptable, 3 percent said it is “sometimes” acceptable,” and 13 percent said it is “rarely acceptable.” That means a total of 17 percent of respondents condoned violence to shut down speech in at least some instances.
Results show that self-censorship is also an issue for both conservative and liberal students, but that conservative students are more impacted.
“Survey responses show that students who identify as Conservative are more likely to report self-censorship than Liberal students (72% vs. 55%). Moderate students fell between the two, with 62% reporting self- censorship,” the report stated."
Survey Finds Disturbing Number of Students Believe Silencing Speech With Violence is Acceptable
"Acceptance of using violence to stop speech or an event from occurring was at nearly 20 percent."legalinsurrection.com
America was a noble experiment,.....
Stop pretending that there has been.
The church likes its special treatment more than it cares about who is running for office because after all religion is big business and likes its subsidies
"There has been no law passed that prohibits any clergy from saying anything they want."
Under Democrat/Liberal LBJ, the law was passed that deprived pastors of their right of free speech.
What possible compelling government interest could this represent????
“The 1954 federal Johnson Amendment prohibits a pastor from talking about candidates from the pulpit in light of Scripture. Thus, based on what a pastor says about an election from the pulpit, the tax code allows the government to tax a church. Consider that in light of the Internal Revenue Service's increasingly vague regulations, and you have a recipe for the censorship of religion. The IRS, through those vague regulations, reserves for itself tremendous discretion and power to decide which churches to punish for violations of the Johnson Amendment and which not to punish.”
Why don't churches pay taxes?
Any reading of the first amendment will prove this to be unconstitutional.
Any other lies you'd like to be called out on?
They can still say whatever they want. Like I said the only thing that will happen is the church they run might lose its government subsidies. So it's easy to see that churches care more about their special tax treatment than they care about politics.
And pastor or priest as a private citizen can still be active in politics he just can't do it from the pulpit as a mouthpiece for the church and the fact is many churches do not allow their clergy to mix politics with their religious duties so you might as well be saying that various Christian churches are violating their clergy's right to free speech.
As I said earlier the Catholic church cannon prohibits any priests from mixing politics with their religious duties.
They would be punished for speech the Fascists that you support, don't approve of.
There is a clear and despotic difference between free speech, and government only authorized speech.
Obviously you are one of the simpletons who has suffered indelible indoctrination.
Now.....would rather 'have a good day,' or Sieg Heil'?
......
That is mixing apples and oranges.
The law did not prohibit free speech from the pulpit, but just prevented a religious tax exemption to be illegally used to lobby.
The law likely actually improved religious freedom, because religion should be about permanent ethical values, not lobbying for contemporary candidates. If a pulpit is used to push one candidate over another, it likely is not serving the actual religion it claims to be serving. A religious leader can be an expert on his religion, but when it comes to political candidates, that would just be someone's opinion, and not based on the actual religion.
For example, if a particular religion says abortion is bad, that would mean members of that religion should not get abortions, but it does NOT mean they should try to pass a law preventing other religions from getting abortions.
That would not be based on the religion, but instead an illegal and immoral attempt to force one religion over all other religions.
There is a clear and despotic difference between free speech, and government only authorized speech.
Obviously you are one of the simpletons who has suffered indelible indoctrination.
Now.....would you rather 'have a good day,' or Sieg Heil'?
Their current candidate supports BLM and the diversity rhetoric the left is pushing. I can’t get behind that.So? I still don’t support Marxism. Even if they want to call themselves libertarian.Then I will tell the 3rd parties what I tell the democrats and republicans. If you want me to vote for you give me a good candidate to support. Not a McCain...Not a Biden ...and definitely not a Jo Jorgensen and he support of CRT...etc.If you cared about the country you wouldn't vote for either party.
Jo Jorgensen is a she.
I am not following the whole conversation here, but Libertarians are sort of anarchists, but extremely right wing.
They believe in maximum decentralization and laissez faire capitalism.
That puts them diametrically opposed to Marxists, even though they have some similarities.
Jo coming out for BLM is why I decided to support her. You support the police state and then complain about Marxism?
"Jo coming out for BLM is why I decided to support her."
You are the sort of imbecile that bodes ill for America's future:
Apparently the current Libertarian party thinks Marxism is more palpable in its. “ light “ form. I don’t though.
Their current candidate supports BLM and the diversity rhetoric the left is pushing. I can’t get behind that.So? I still don’t support Marxism. Even if they want to call themselves libertarian.Then I will tell the 3rd parties what I tell the democrats and republicans. If you want me to vote for you give me a good candidate to support. Not a McCain...Not a Biden ...and definitely not a Jo Jorgensen and he support of CRT...etc.If you cared about the country you wouldn't vote for either party.
Jo Jorgensen is a she.
I am not following the whole conversation here, but Libertarians are sort of anarchists, but extremely right wing.
They believe in maximum decentralization and laissez faire capitalism.
That puts them diametrically opposed to Marxists, even though they have some similarities.
Jo coming out for BLM is why I decided to support her. You support the police state and then complain about Marxism?
"Jo coming out for BLM is why I decided to support her."
You are the sort of imbecile that bodes ill for America's future:
You support an authoritarian racist police state. I don't.
It doesn'tThere has been no law passed that prohibits any clergy from saying anything they want.LBJ silences religious folks.
Kagan says speech can be restricted.
Obama says books can be banned.
And the result is the acceptance of totalitarian beliefs by our youth:
"Survey Finds Disturbing Number of Students Believe Silencing Speech With Violence is Acceptable
Posted by Mike LaChance Thursday, October 1, 2020 at 10:00am
“Acceptance of using violence to stop speech or an event from occurring was at nearly 20 percent.”
Campus Reform reports:
REPORT: Disturbing number of college students justify shutting down speech with violence
Nearly one in five U.S. college students said they approve of violence in response to speech on campus in at least some instances.
A survey conducted by the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), Real Clear Education, and College Pulse asked 20,000 students at 55 colleges across the nation questions regarding free speech issues on their campuses. Students were asked whether violence is acceptable to shut down a speaker they didn’t like and if it is acceptable for students to block people from attending an event.
Acceptance of using violence to stop speech or an event from occurring was at nearly 20 percent.
One percent of students said that violence is “always” acceptable, 3 percent said it is “sometimes” acceptable,” and 13 percent said it is “rarely acceptable.” That means a total of 17 percent of respondents condoned violence to shut down speech in at least some instances.
Results show that self-censorship is also an issue for both conservative and liberal students, but that conservative students are more impacted.
“Survey responses show that students who identify as Conservative are more likely to report self-censorship than Liberal students (72% vs. 55%). Moderate students fell between the two, with 62% reporting self- censorship,” the report stated."Survey Finds Disturbing Number of Students Believe Silencing Speech With Violence is Acceptable
"Acceptance of using violence to stop speech or an event from occurring was at nearly 20 percent."
America was a noble experiment,.....
Stop pretending that there has been.
The church likes its special treatment more than it cares about who is running for office because after all religion is big business and likes its subsidies
"There has been no law passed that prohibits any clergy from saying anything they want."
Under Democrat/Liberal LBJ, the law was passed that deprived pastors of their right of free speech.
What possible compelling government interest could this represent????
“The 1954 federal Johnson Amendment prohibits a pastor from talking about candidates from the pulpit in light of Scripture. Thus, based on what a pastor says about an election from the pulpit, the tax code allows the government to tax a church. Consider that in light of the Internal Revenue Service's increasingly vague regulations, and you have a recipe for the censorship of religion. The IRS, through those vague regulations, reserves for itself tremendous discretion and power to decide which churches to punish for violations of the Johnson Amendment and which not to punish.”
Why don't churches pay taxes?
Any reading of the first amendment will prove this to be unconstitutional.
Any other lies you'd like to be called out on?
They can still say whatever they want. Like I said the only thing that will happen is the church they run might lose its government subsidies. So it's easy to see that churches care more about their special tax treatment than they care about politics.
And pastor or priest as a private citizen can still be active in politics he just can't do it from the pulpit as a mouthpiece for the church and the fact is many churches do not allow their clergy to mix politics with their religious duties so you might as well be saying that various Christian churches are violating their clergy's right to free speech.
As I said earlier the Catholic church cannon prohibits any priests from mixing politics with their religious duties.
They would be punished for speech the Fascists that you support, don't approve of.
There is a clear and despotic difference between free speech, and government only authorized speech.
Obviously you are one of the simpletons who has suffered indelible indoctrination.
Now.....would rather 'have a good day,' or Sieg Heil'?
Taking away preferential tax treatment is NOT punishment.
They shouldn't get special treatment in the first place
Their current candidate supports BLM and the diversity rhetoric the left is pushing. I can’t get behind that.So? I still don’t support Marxism. Even if they want to call themselves libertarian.Then I will tell the 3rd parties what I tell the democrats and republicans. If you want me to vote for you give me a good candidate to support. Not a McCain...Not a Biden ...and definitely not a Jo Jorgensen and he support of CRT...etc.If you cared about the country you wouldn't vote for either party.
Jo Jorgensen is a she.
I am not following the whole conversation here, but Libertarians are sort of anarchists, but extremely right wing.
They believe in maximum decentralization and laissez faire capitalism.
That puts them diametrically opposed to Marxists, even though they have some similarities.
Jo coming out for BLM is why I decided to support her. You support the police state and then complain about Marxism?
"Jo coming out for BLM is why I decided to support her."
You are the sort of imbecile that bodes ill for America's future:
Apparently the current Libertarian party thinks Marxism is more palpable in its. “ light “ form. I don’t though.
BLM is not at all Marxist.
They are just anti-police state.
And everyone should be anti-police state, even the police.
nypost.com
Their current candidate supports BLM and the diversity rhetoric the left is pushing. I can’t get behind that.So? I still don’t support Marxism. Even if they want to call themselves libertarian.Then I will tell the 3rd parties what I tell the democrats and republicans. If you want me to vote for you give me a good candidate to support. Not a McCain...Not a Biden ...and definitely not a Jo Jorgensen and he support of CRT...etc.If you cared about the country you wouldn't vote for either party.
Jo Jorgensen is a she.
I am not following the whole conversation here, but Libertarians are sort of anarchists, but extremely right wing.
They believe in maximum decentralization and laissez faire capitalism.
That puts them diametrically opposed to Marxists, even though they have some similarities.
Jo coming out for BLM is why I decided to support her. You support the police state and then complain about Marxism?
"Jo coming out for BLM is why I decided to support her."
You are the sort of imbecile that bodes ill for America's future:
Apparently the current Libertarian party thinks Marxism is more palpable in its. “ light “ form. I don’t though.
BLM is not at all Marxist.
They are just anti-police state.
And everyone should be anti-police state, even the police.
...
BLM is not at all Marxist.
They are just anti-police state.
And everyone should be anti-police state, even the police.
The said they were Marxist, fool.
"Black Lives Matter co-founder describes herself as ‘trained Marxist’"
Black Lives Matter co-founder describes herself as ‘trained Marxist’
Black Lives Matter co-founder Patrisse Cullors said in a newly surfaced video from 2015 that she and her fellow organizers are “trained Marxists” – making clear their movement’s ideological f…
Their current candidate supports BLM and the diversity rhetoric the left is pushing. I can’t get behind that.So? I still don’t support Marxism. Even if they want to call themselves libertarian.Then I will tell the 3rd parties what I tell the democrats and republicans. If you want me to vote for you give me a good candidate to support. Not a McCain...Not a Biden ...and definitely not a Jo Jorgensen and he support of CRT...etc.If you cared about the country you wouldn't vote for either party.
Jo Jorgensen is a she.
I am not following the whole conversation here, but Libertarians are sort of anarchists, but extremely right wing.
They believe in maximum decentralization and laissez faire capitalism.
That puts them diametrically opposed to Marxists, even though they have some similarities.
Jo coming out for BLM is why I decided to support her. You support the police state and then complain about Marxism?
"Jo coming out for BLM is why I decided to support her."
You are the sort of imbecile that bodes ill for America's future:
Apparently the current Libertarian party thinks Marxism is more palpable in its. “ light “ form. I don’t though.
BLM is not at all Marxist.
They are just anti-police state.
And everyone should be anti-police state, even the police.
They themselves stated they are trained Marxists. I usually take activists at their word as to their ideology.
...
BLM is not at all Marxist.
They are just anti-police state.
And everyone should be anti-police state, even the police.
The said they were Marxist, fool.
"Black Lives Matter co-founder describes herself as ‘trained Marxist’"
Black Lives Matter co-founder describes herself as ‘trained Marxist’
Black Lives Matter co-founder Patrisse Cullors said in a newly surfaced video from 2015 that she and her fellow organizers are “trained Marxists” – making clear their movement’s ideological f…
Here is what your link said.
{...
Black Lives Matter co-founder Patrisse Cullors said in a newly surfaced video from 2015 that she and her fellow organizers are “trained Marxists” – making clear their movement’s ideological foundation, according to a report.
Cullors, 36, was the protégé of Eric Mann, former agitator of the Weather Underground domestic terror organization, and spent years absorbing the Marxist-Leninist ideology that shaped her worldview, Breitbart News reported.
“The first thing, I think, is that we actually do have an ideological frame. Myself and Alicia in particular are trained organizers,” she said, referring to BLM co-founder Alicia Garza.
“We are trained Marxists. We are super-versed on, sort of, ideological theories. And I think that what we really tried to do is build a movement that could be utilized by many, many black folk,” Cullors added in the interview with Jared Ball of The Real News Network.
While promoting her book “When They Call You a Terrorist: A Black Lives Matter Memoir” in 2018, Cullors described her introduction to and support for Marxist ideology.
She described to Democracy Now! how she became a trained organizer with the Labor/Community Strategy Center, which she called her “first political home” under the mentorship of Mann, its director, Breitbart reported.
...}
Which means it is really Breitbart that you are sourcing.
And they are not that reliable.
I do find Culler stating in other places that she did get some of her economic insight from Marx, Lenin, and Mao, but that does not make her a Marxist. In fact, I would not say that Stalin or Mao were Marxists, because Marx did not believe in a strong centralized state.
Their current candidate supports BLM and the diversity rhetoric the left is pushing. I can’t get behind that.So? I still don’t support Marxism. Even if they want to call themselves libertarian.Then I will tell the 3rd parties what I tell the democrats and republicans. If you want me to vote for you give me a good candidate to support. Not a McCain...Not a Biden ...and definitely not a Jo Jorgensen and he support of CRT...etc.If you cared about the country you wouldn't vote for either party.
Jo Jorgensen is a she.
I am not following the whole conversation here, but Libertarians are sort of anarchists, but extremely right wing.
They believe in maximum decentralization and laissez faire capitalism.
That puts them diametrically opposed to Marxists, even though they have some similarities.
Jo coming out for BLM is why I decided to support her. You support the police state and then complain about Marxism?
"Jo coming out for BLM is why I decided to support her."
You are the sort of imbecile that bodes ill for America's future:
Apparently the current Libertarian party thinks Marxism is more palpable in its. “ light “ form. I don’t though.
BLM is not at all Marxist.
They are just anti-police state.
And everyone should be anti-police state, even the police.
They themselves stated they are trained Marxists. I usually take activists at their word as to their ideology.
What she meant is that she studies Marx, just as one can study any historical figure.
It does not mean they subscribe to or follow the entire doctrine, whatever that may be.
It doesn'tThere has been no law passed that prohibits any clergy from saying anything they want.LBJ silences religious folks.
Kagan says speech can be restricted.
Obama says books can be banned.
And the result is the acceptance of totalitarian beliefs by our youth:
"Survey Finds Disturbing Number of Students Believe Silencing Speech With Violence is Acceptable
Posted by Mike LaChance Thursday, October 1, 2020 at 10:00am
“Acceptance of using violence to stop speech or an event from occurring was at nearly 20 percent.”
Campus Reform reports:
REPORT: Disturbing number of college students justify shutting down speech with violence
Nearly one in five U.S. college students said they approve of violence in response to speech on campus in at least some instances.
A survey conducted by the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), Real Clear Education, and College Pulse asked 20,000 students at 55 colleges across the nation questions regarding free speech issues on their campuses. Students were asked whether violence is acceptable to shut down a speaker they didn’t like and if it is acceptable for students to block people from attending an event.
Acceptance of using violence to stop speech or an event from occurring was at nearly 20 percent.
One percent of students said that violence is “always” acceptable, 3 percent said it is “sometimes” acceptable,” and 13 percent said it is “rarely acceptable.” That means a total of 17 percent of respondents condoned violence to shut down speech in at least some instances.
Results show that self-censorship is also an issue for both conservative and liberal students, but that conservative students are more impacted.
“Survey responses show that students who identify as Conservative are more likely to report self-censorship than Liberal students (72% vs. 55%). Moderate students fell between the two, with 62% reporting self- censorship,” the report stated."Survey Finds Disturbing Number of Students Believe Silencing Speech With Violence is Acceptable
"Acceptance of using violence to stop speech or an event from occurring was at nearly 20 percent."
America was a noble experiment,.....
Stop pretending that there has been.
The church likes its special treatment more than it cares about who is running for office because after all religion is big business and likes its subsidies
"There has been no law passed that prohibits any clergy from saying anything they want."
Under Democrat/Liberal LBJ, the law was passed that deprived pastors of their right of free speech.
What possible compelling government interest could this represent????
“The 1954 federal Johnson Amendment prohibits a pastor from talking about candidates from the pulpit in light of Scripture. Thus, based on what a pastor says about an election from the pulpit, the tax code allows the government to tax a church. Consider that in light of the Internal Revenue Service's increasingly vague regulations, and you have a recipe for the censorship of religion. The IRS, through those vague regulations, reserves for itself tremendous discretion and power to decide which churches to punish for violations of the Johnson Amendment and which not to punish.”
Why don't churches pay taxes?
Any reading of the first amendment will prove this to be unconstitutional.
Any other lies you'd like to be called out on?
They can still say whatever they want. Like I said the only thing that will happen is the church they run might lose its government subsidies. So it's easy to see that churches care more about their special tax treatment than they care about politics.
And pastor or priest as a private citizen can still be active in politics he just can't do it from the pulpit as a mouthpiece for the church and the fact is many churches do not allow their clergy to mix politics with their religious duties so you might as well be saying that various Christian churches are violating their clergy's right to free speech.
As I said earlier the Catholic church cannon prohibits any priests from mixing politics with their religious duties.
They would be punished for speech the Fascists that you support, don't approve of.
There is a clear and despotic difference between free speech, and government only authorized speech.
Obviously you are one of the simpletons who has suffered indelible indoctrination.
Now.....would rather 'have a good day,' or Sieg Heil'?
Taking away preferential tax treatment is NOT punishment.
They shouldn't get special treatment in the first place
"Taking away preferential tax treatment is NOT punishment. "
No one proves the depth of your stupidity better than you.
Answer correctly, and you will never vote Democrat.
1.Two points right at the start: the Democrats are the party of the rich….Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos, Mark Zuckerberg…..Hunter Biden. The old tale that the Republicans are the party of the rich? A fable.
2. And, second, but more important point is that the Democrat party is the party of censorship, of opposition to free speech.
In an America supposedly guided by the Constitution, wherein we find the first amendment… Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech,…we find the major political party doing, and planning to do, exactly that.
Consider this:
Under Democrat/Liberal LBJ, the law was passed that deprived pastors of their right of free speech.
What possible compelling government interest could this represent????
“The 1954 federal Johnson Amendment prohibits a pastor from talking about candidates from the pulpit in light of Scripture. Thus, based on what a pastor says about an election from the pulpit, the tax code allows the government to tax a church. Consider that in light of the Internal Revenue Service's increasingly vague regulations, and you have a recipe for the censorship of religion. The IRS, through those vague regulations, reserves for itself tremendous discretion and power to decide which churches to punish for violations of the Johnson Amendment and which not to punish.”
Why don't churches pay taxes?
Any reading of the first amendment will prove this to be unconstitutional.
3. As Liberals/Democrat have grown stronger, they now apply the same censorship everywhere they can. For several months, perhaps longer, there has been a constant complaint by conservatives that they have been banned, censored, ‘shadow banned,’ whatever, on social media. One might argue that these are privately owned, by wealthy Democrats/Liberals, and that they are simply supporting their party.
I say it is unamerican and requires the same response that government used in citing monopolies.
The fact is, Democrat/Liberals/Progressives have no intention of allowing debate, as they always lose same. And, they use the same advantages to silence the other side when they gain power in government.
4. Which brings up the Supreme Court case, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. “The case revolved around the documentary Hillary: The Movie, which was produced by Citizens United. Under the McCain-Feingold law, a federal court in Washington D.C. ruled that Citizens United would be barred from advertising its film.[18] The case (08-205, 558 U.S. 50 (2010)) was heard in the United States Supreme Court on March 24, 2009. During oral argument, the government argued that under existing precedents, it had the power under the Constitution to prohibit the publication of books and movies if they were made or sold by corporations.” Citizens United (organization) - Wikipedia
5. While those not paying close attention might have been fooled into believing that the case was about whether a particular entity could use money in a particular manner, it was actually a case of the Democrats claiming the right to censor speech.
In particular, it is the Democrats forbidding criticism of politicians. Democrat politicians...and their policies and practices.
And this thread is a cautionary tale for the upcoming election.
freebeacon.com
It doesn'tThere has been no law passed that prohibits any clergy from saying anything they want.LBJ silences religious folks.
Kagan says speech can be restricted.
Obama says books can be banned.
And the result is the acceptance of totalitarian beliefs by our youth:
"Survey Finds Disturbing Number of Students Believe Silencing Speech With Violence is Acceptable
Posted by Mike LaChance Thursday, October 1, 2020 at 10:00am
“Acceptance of using violence to stop speech or an event from occurring was at nearly 20 percent.”
Campus Reform reports:
REPORT: Disturbing number of college students justify shutting down speech with violence
Nearly one in five U.S. college students said they approve of violence in response to speech on campus in at least some instances.
A survey conducted by the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), Real Clear Education, and College Pulse asked 20,000 students at 55 colleges across the nation questions regarding free speech issues on their campuses. Students were asked whether violence is acceptable to shut down a speaker they didn’t like and if it is acceptable for students to block people from attending an event.
Acceptance of using violence to stop speech or an event from occurring was at nearly 20 percent.
One percent of students said that violence is “always” acceptable, 3 percent said it is “sometimes” acceptable,” and 13 percent said it is “rarely acceptable.” That means a total of 17 percent of respondents condoned violence to shut down speech in at least some instances.
Results show that self-censorship is also an issue for both conservative and liberal students, but that conservative students are more impacted.
“Survey responses show that students who identify as Conservative are more likely to report self-censorship than Liberal students (72% vs. 55%). Moderate students fell between the two, with 62% reporting self- censorship,” the report stated."Survey Finds Disturbing Number of Students Believe Silencing Speech With Violence is Acceptable
"Acceptance of using violence to stop speech or an event from occurring was at nearly 20 percent."
America was a noble experiment,.....
Stop pretending that there has been.
The church likes its special treatment more than it cares about who is running for office because after all religion is big business and likes its subsidies
"There has been no law passed that prohibits any clergy from saying anything they want."
Under Democrat/Liberal LBJ, the law was passed that deprived pastors of their right of free speech.
What possible compelling government interest could this represent????
“The 1954 federal Johnson Amendment prohibits a pastor from talking about candidates from the pulpit in light of Scripture. Thus, based on what a pastor says about an election from the pulpit, the tax code allows the government to tax a church. Consider that in light of the Internal Revenue Service's increasingly vague regulations, and you have a recipe for the censorship of religion. The IRS, through those vague regulations, reserves for itself tremendous discretion and power to decide which churches to punish for violations of the Johnson Amendment and which not to punish.”
Why don't churches pay taxes?
Any reading of the first amendment will prove this to be unconstitutional.
Any other lies you'd like to be called out on?
They can still say whatever they want. Like I said the only thing that will happen is the church they run might lose its government subsidies. So it's easy to see that churches care more about their special tax treatment than they care about politics.
And pastor or priest as a private citizen can still be active in politics he just can't do it from the pulpit as a mouthpiece for the church and the fact is many churches do not allow their clergy to mix politics with their religious duties so you might as well be saying that various Christian churches are violating their clergy's right to free speech.
As I said earlier the Catholic church cannon prohibits any priests from mixing politics with their religious duties.
They would be punished for speech the Fascists that you support, don't approve of.
There is a clear and despotic difference between free speech, and government only authorized speech.
Obviously you are one of the simpletons who has suffered indelible indoctrination.
Now.....would rather 'have a good day,' or Sieg Heil'?
Taking away preferential tax treatment is NOT punishment.
They shouldn't get special treatment in the first place
"Taking away preferential tax treatment is NOT punishment. "
No one proves the depth of your stupidity better than you.
You do when you write this drivel every day of the week.
Russian propaganda feed^^Answer correctly, and you will never vote Democrat.
1.Two points right at the start: the Democrats are the party of the rich….Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos, Mark Zuckerberg…..Hunter Biden. The old tale that the Republicans are the party of the rich? A fable.
2. And, second, but more important point is that the Democrat party is the party of censorship, of opposition to free speech.
In an America supposedly guided by the Constitution, wherein we find the first amendment… Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech,…we find the major political party doing, and planning to do, exactly that.
Consider this:
Under Democrat/Liberal LBJ, the law was passed that deprived pastors of their right of free speech.
What possible compelling government interest could this represent????
“The 1954 federal Johnson Amendment prohibits a pastor from talking about candidates from the pulpit in light of Scripture. Thus, based on what a pastor says about an election from the pulpit, the tax code allows the government to tax a church. Consider that in light of the Internal Revenue Service's increasingly vague regulations, and you have a recipe for the censorship of religion. The IRS, through those vague regulations, reserves for itself tremendous discretion and power to decide which churches to punish for violations of the Johnson Amendment and which not to punish.”
Why don't churches pay taxes?
Any reading of the first amendment will prove this to be unconstitutional.
3. As Liberals/Democrat have grown stronger, they now apply the same censorship everywhere they can. For several months, perhaps longer, there has been a constant complaint by conservatives that they have been banned, censored, ‘shadow banned,’ whatever, on social media. One might argue that these are privately owned, by wealthy Democrats/Liberals, and that they are simply supporting their party.
I say it is unamerican and requires the same response that government used in citing monopolies.
The fact is, Democrat/Liberals/Progressives have no intention of allowing debate, as they always lose same. And, they use the same advantages to silence the other side when they gain power in government.
4. Which brings up the Supreme Court case, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. “The case revolved around the documentary Hillary: The Movie, which was produced by Citizens United. Under the McCain-Feingold law, a federal court in Washington D.C. ruled that Citizens United would be barred from advertising its film.[18] The case (08-205, 558 U.S. 50 (2010)) was heard in the United States Supreme Court on March 24, 2009. During oral argument, the government argued that under existing precedents, it had the power under the Constitution to prohibit the publication of books and movies if they were made or sold by corporations.” Citizens United (organization) - Wikipedia
5. While those not paying close attention might have been fooled into believing that the case was about whether a particular entity could use money in a particular manner, it was actually a case of the Democrats claiming the right to censor speech.
In particular, it is the Democrats forbidding criticism of politicians. Democrat politicians...and their policies and practices.
And this thread is a cautionary tale for the upcoming election.
"Twitter Blocks NY Post’s Hunter Biden Story, Locks Newspaper’s Account
Twitter blocked users from tweeting a New York Post report about Hunter Biden on Wednesday afternoon and soon after locked the Post‘s account, in a growing trend by predominantly left-wing technology companies to ban content with which they disagree.
"@Twitter has locked @nypost," Sen. Josh Hawley (R., Mo.) tweeted. "Has Twitter ever locked the account of a major news outlet? Why is Twitter attacking the free press?"
Hours before, Sen. Ted Cruz (R., Texas) tweeted that Twitter had disabled the link to the story and denounced the social media platform for choosing to "act as Biden's PR team."
Twitter currently employs the former press secretary of Joe Biden's running mate, Kamala Harris, as its senior communications manager for "political, policy, tech and media reporters."
The news comes after Facebook also moved to suppress the story before it was fact-checked."
Twitter Blocks NY Post's Hunter Biden Story, Locks Newspaper's Account
Twitter blocked users from tweeting a New York Post report about Hunter Biden on Wednesday afternoon and soon after locked the Post's account.
