Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
11 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

Okay, stipulated...but still not an advocating an abridgement of free speech.  

 

We let you post here, for example, even though we think you're a piece of ****.  

 

You can snipe from the balcony all you want Tom, yet you (and whoever else constitutes your "We") don't let me do or not do anything. 

Edited by garybusey
Posted
Just now, garybusey said:

 

You can snipe from the balcony all you want Tom, yet you (and whoever else constitutes your "We") don't let me do or not do anything, Tom. 

 

tl;dc

Posted
1 minute ago, garybusey said:

 

You can snipe from the balcony all you want Tom, yet you (and whoever else constitutes your "We") don't let me do or not do anything, Tom. 

Do you think it's ok to quote someone here and then completely change their words to make it appear as if that other person had written them?

Posted
53 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

I didn't say you were a piece of ****, I said David Hogg is a piece of ****.  I don't know what your stance on natural rights is, and I don't know if you presume yourself special enough that you'd advocate directly violating the rights of millions of people, and billions more not even born yet, as Hogg is.

 

My rights are not David Hogg's to surrender.

 

"My rights" ...what a gas...spare us the histrionics, the wailing, the humanity!

 

Your "rights" were much different before Heller...pretty sure the creator wasn't thinking an AR 15 was a natural right....

 

Try being a "citizen"

 

 

Posted
3 minutes ago, baskin said:

 

"My rights" ...what a gas...spare us the histrionics, the wailing, the humanity!

 

Your "rights" were much different before Heller...pretty sure the creator wasn't thinking an AR 15 was a natural right....

 

Try being a "citizen"

 

 

Is this really adding anything to the conversation?

 

God. !@#$ off

Posted (edited)
8 minutes ago, baskin said:

 

"My rights" ...what a gas...spare us the histrionics, the wailing, the humanity!

 

Your "rights" were much different before Heller...pretty sure the creator wasn't thinking an AR 15 was a natural right....

 

Try being a "citizen"

 

 

My rights have always been the same.  They don't come from you, and they don't come from America.  And they are mine, not yours or anyone else's.

 

The fact that you seem to think you have a say in what my rights (within the context of natural rights) are only serves to reinforce the necessity of the Second Amendment, and lionizes the NRA in it's advocacy efforts. 

 

Also, you've confused "citizen" with "subject".

Edited by TakeYouToTasker
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

For the record and clarity - I have no problem with them, or anyone, exercising their right to protest and free speech. 

 

It just doesn't mean I don't get to voice my on concerns about their agenda, regardless of their age or circumstance. 

 

Pretty sure thats Tasker too. 

 

No calling out you or Tasker.  It's just that there was a bit of a climate in here a while back when some had concerns about the AGENDA of some hate groups, being accused of wanting to deny free speech.

 

 

Edited by Cugalabanza
  • Like (+1) 1
Posted (edited)
19 minutes ago, Boyst62 said:

Is this really adding anything to the conversation?

 

God. !@#$ off

 

Not adding to the comfortable conversation between you regulars?....Tough when people hit you up with another perspective and view huh?

 

I know why you guys hang out here - out in the real world you would just look like the idiots you are....in here when someone contradicts you guys....out come the names, the memes, the anger....all in your controlled envrironment

 

I am just here for the comedy....it never lets me down....

Edited by baskin
  • Like (+1) 1
Posted (edited)
15 minutes ago, Cugalabanza said:

 

No calling out you or Tasker.  It's just that there was a bit of a climate in here a while back when some had concerns about the AGENDA of some hate groups, being accused of wanting to deny free speech.

 

 

David Hogg's right to free speech is no more or less important than the that of neo-nazis.

 

Again, this is because of the fundamental nature of rights.  The assertion that the government gets to decide that some speech is too ugly or controversial to allow is to acquiesce to the idea that individuals have no rights at all, but instead live under the thumb of a benevolent dictatorship which has the just authority to grant special privileges to favored groups.

 

The underlying moral philosophy which defines natural rights as intrinsic and inalienable is far more important than individual outcomes, like repugnant !@#$s like Richard Spencer saying hateful things.

 

 

Edited by TakeYouToTasker
Posted
2 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

David Hogg's right to free speech is no more or less important than the that of neo-nazis.

 

Again, this is because of the fundamental nature of rights.  The assertion that the government gets to decide that some speech is too ugly or controversial to allow is to acquiesce to the idea that individuals have no rights at all, but instead live under the thumb of a benevolent dictatorship which has the just authority grants special privileges to favored groups.

 

The underlying moral philosophy which defines natural rights as intrinsic and inalienable is far more important than individual outcomes, like repugnant !@#$s like Richard Spencer saying hateful things.

 

 

 

I'm not disputing any of this.

Posted
9 minutes ago, baskin said:

 

Not adding to the comfortable conversation between you regulars?....Tough when people hit you up with another perspective and view huh?

 

I know why you guys hang out here - out in the real world you would just look like the idiots you are....in here when someone contradicts you guys....out come the names, the memes, the anger....all in your controlled envrironment

 

I am just here for the comedy....it never lets me down....

You are not that funny.

Posted
56 minutes ago, B-Man said:

There it is.................the paper of record.

 

Repeal the Second Amendment
New York Times, by John Paul Stevens

 

Original Article

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

AND.............as needs to be repeated on every page:

 

A reminder from the Washington Post: School shootings becoming LESS common... 

 

 

.

 

 

And school shooting account for only about 1.2% of all shooting deaths. 

 

This is like the terrorism issue so much. The chances of being killed by terrorism are pretty small but we got terror alerts, homeland insecurity and Muslim hatred out of that. Time to run on this issue for all its worth 

7 minutes ago, Cugalabanza said:

 

I'm not disputing any of this.

I would. Neo-Nazis want to turn our society into a living hell for many people. That is very different 

Posted
1 minute ago, Tiberius said:

And school shooting account for only about 1.2% of all shooting deaths. 

 

This is like the terrorism issue so much. The chances of being killed by terrorism are pretty small but we got terror alerts, homeland insecurity and Muslim hatred out of that.

 

You know, you say stuff like this and it makes me happy.  Roll back the bloated, overwrought programs that have been overblown and largely ineffective while !@#$ing over the American people.  !@#$ yeah!

 

2 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

 Time to run on this issue for all its worth 

 

Then you say **** like this without a whit of irony and it makes me sad.  Let's create more bloated, overwrought programs that will be overblown and largely ineffective while !@#$ing over the American people.

Posted
4 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

I would. Neo-Nazis want to turn our society into a living hell for many people. That is very different 

 

Obviously, not all speech is protected.  Threats, slander, incitement to violence,...

 

But just being a dick and having terrible ideas, people are free to do that.  Ideally, we should be grateful to them for so clearly showing us who they truly are.

 

  • Like (+1) 1
  • Thank you (+1) 2
Posted
9 minutes ago, Cugalabanza said:

 

Obviously, not all speech is protected.  Threats, slander, incitement to violence,...

 

But just being a dick and having terrible ideas, people are free to do that.  Ideally, we should be grateful to them for so clearly showing us who they truly are.

 

Who's to say what's terrible and what's not?  Who's to say your viewpoint is more than mine?  Who says your right to freedom is larger than mine?

 

The answer is easy.  The Constitution. It spells it out. So until it's changed nothing can be done.  Or should be done. 

Posted
8 minutes ago, Cugalabanza said:

 

Obviously, not all speech is protected.  Threats, slander, incitement to violence,...

 

But just being a dick and having terrible ideas, people are free to do that.  Ideally, we should be grateful to them for so clearly showing us who they truly are.

 

Important to note that restrictions on the right to speech exist within the framework of the liberty philosophies from which the derived.  You cannot be said to have the right to something which violates the rights of someone else.

×
×
  • Create New...