posted on April 9, 2007 01:07:55 PM newWe read about those stories everyday. Where someone slips and says something that others believe they shouldn't have said....then someone else makes a FEDERAL case out of what was said....and they are FORCED to apologize.
Ah yes, glad that you brought this issue up. Who was it that made an issue out of Keery's goof and Obama's goof about the statements being made about the troops? It was the Republicans. How soon we forget tsk tsk tsk
Now Linda is saying they were forced to apologoze for their free speech. She is just another flip flopping Republican that wants it both ways (maybe in and out of bed).
Why was is it that most Republicans were in favor of a FLAG BURNING AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION? I guess you are going to say burning the flag is against freedom of speech.
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
----------------------------------
The duty of a patriot in this time and place is to ask questions, to demand answers, to understand where our nation is headed and why. If the answers you get do not suit you, or if they frighten you, or if they anger you, it is your duty as a patriot to dissent. Freedom does not begin with blind acceptance and with a flag. Freedom begins when you say 'No.'
[ edited by logansdad on Apr 9, 2007 01:57 PM ]
posted on April 9, 2007 01:14:33 PM newWe don't allow groups of people to post the names and addresses of abortion doctors on the internet....WHY would THAT be? lol To protect them from the wackos that wound want to hunt them down and kill them.
Linda if you want to defend free speech, Why don't you post all your personal information - Name, address and phone number. Or are you afraid all the wackos will hunt you down
The topic of free speech is one of the most contentious issues in a liberal society. If liberty of expression is not valued, as has often been the case in human history, there is no problem; freedom of expression is simply curtailed in favor of other competing values. Free speech only becomes a volatile issue when it is highly valued because only then do the limitations placed upon it become controversial. And the first thing to note in any sensible discussion of freedom of speech is that it will be limited because it always takes place within a context of competing values. This is what Stanley Fish means when he says that there is no such thing as free speech. Free speech is just a term to focus our attention on a particular form of human interaction; it does not mean that speech should never be interfered with: "free speech in short, is not an independent value but a political prize" (1994,102). No society has yet existed where speech has not been interfered with to some extent. As John Stuart Mill argued in On Liberty, a struggle always takes place between the competing demands of liberty and authority, and we cannot have the latter without the former:
All that makes existence valuable to anyone depends on the enforcement of restraints upon the actions of other people. Some rules of conduct, therefore, must be imposed -- by law in the first place, and by opinion on many things which are not fit subjects for the operation of law. (1978, 5)
The task, therefore, is not to argue for a "pure" unadulterated free speech; such a concept cannot be defended. Instead, we need to decide how much value we place on speech in relation to the worth we place on other important ideals: "speech, in short, is never a value in and of itself but is always produced within the precincts of some assumed conception of the good" (Fish, 1994, 104).
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
---------------------------------- The duty of a patriot in this time and place is to ask questions, to demand answers, to understand where our nation is headed and why. If the answers you get do not suit you, or if they frighten you, or if they anger you, it is your duty as a patriot to dissent. Freedom does not begin with blind acceptance and with a flag. Freedom begins when you say 'No.'
posted on April 9, 2007 01:18:06 PM newAnd I have NO doubt in my mind that IF there was some gay basher standing on the public square....calling for gays to be beaten everytime anyone sees one....then old LD and every liberal in the US would be screaming their heads off..... would want to stop his 'free speech' position quicker than lightning. NO DOUBT.
WRONG AGAIN LINDA - Like usual
This happens already. Take the case of the so-called Reverand Phelps. He can speak his filth, vile and hate speech just like you
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
---------------------------------- The duty of a patriot in this time and place is to ask questions, to demand answers, to understand where our nation is headed and why. If the answers you get do not suit you, or if they frighten you, or if they anger you, it is your duty as a patriot to dissent. Freedom does not begin with blind acceptance and with a flag. Freedom begins when you say 'No.'
posted on April 9, 2007 01:21:25 PM new
WRONG WRONG WRONG LINDA. YOU SHOULD REALLY DO SOME RESEARCH BEFORE POSTING FALSE STATEMENTS.
AND I have no doubt the aclu would NEVER be DEFENDING the actions of the gay basher who is calling for the gays to be beaten.
ACLU Backs Westboro Baptist Church Apparently the ACLU places more emphasis on always taking the wrong side than it does on supporting gays, because it has filed suit on behalf of the Westboro Baptist Church, in order to allow this bizarre gay-bashing cult to keep disrupting the memorial services of fallen American soldiers.
Despite its name, the Westboro Baptist Church appears to have little to do with Christianity. The cult is led by a creepazoid named Fred Phelps, whose philosophy is built around the notion that God hates America for permitting homosexuality. His followers have managed to attract attention to themselves by crashing heroes' funerals, waving disrespectful placards and yelling hostile nonsense.
A highly sensible Missouri law bans protests "in front of or about" a location where a funeral is taking place, starting one hour before it starts, ending an hour after it's over. The ACLU wants this law declared unconstitutional on the false grounds that it limits protesters' free speech based on the content of their message. They are demanding an injunction that would allow Phelps and his gang to continue their disgraceful activities.
Phelps' daughter Shirley L. Phelps-Roper, a spokeswoman for the cult, triumphantly yelped:
I told the nation, as each state went after these laws, that if the day came that they got in our way, that we would sue them. At this hour, the wrath of God is pouring out on this country.
Speaking of people getting wrath poured out on them, wouldn't it be fun to lock Phelps-Roper in a room with Fox News' Julie Banderas?
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
---------------------------------- The duty of a patriot in this time and place is to ask questions, to demand answers, to understand where our nation is headed and why. If the answers you get do not suit you, or if they frighten you, or if they anger you, it is your duty as a patriot to dissent. Freedom does not begin with blind acceptance and with a flag. Freedom begins when you say 'No.'
posted on April 9, 2007 01:38:34 PM newYou're saying our elected REPUGLICAN leaders want to allow the burning the flag?
Yes the REPUGLICAN leaders
Many believe that isn't a free speech right
Why not, because you are against it? To some it is freedom of expression. There is no hate speech involved, no pornography. It can be a form of protest to some.
BUT unlike the NAMBLA group it's SPEECH....not a call to do HARM to others. [children]
AGAIN, you just do not understand. READ WHAT YOU JUST SAID
The ACLU was defending NAMBLA's right to say what they want. THEY WERE NOT DEFENDING NAMBLA'S ACTUAL ACTIONS to have sex with children. That is a decision for the courts to decide what is legal. OBVIOUSLY YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND THE DIFFERENCE.
Despite all your fears, there is no judge that will allow an adult to have sex with a child or say it is an adult's right to have sex with whomever he/she pleases.
No crime is being committed when a group speaks about having sex with a child. The crime is committed when the actual act occurs. DO YOU UNDERSTAND?
It would be like you having freedom of speech by starting a group to have sex with other (adult) family members and advocating it as a right. You are free to do what you please. There is no crime in that. The crime happens when you actually have sex with another family member- assuming it is illegal in the state you commit the act.
And I never got so far as to call ANY abuse towards you or yours. As you did with me and mine. Memory again???
My memory is just fine. I have never called for a beating or killing against you Linda. Only in your dreams are you imagining such as thing.
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
----------------------------------
The duty of a patriot in this time and place is to ask questions, to demand answers, to understand where our nation is headed and why. If the answers you get do not suit you, or if they frighten you, or if they anger you, it is your duty as a patriot to dissent. Freedom does not begin with blind acceptance and with a flag. Freedom begins when you say 'No.'
[ edited by logansdad on Apr 9, 2007 01:42 PM ]
posted on April 9, 2007 01:41:36 PM new
edited because if I try to explain it will only give lindak the opportunity to go on another 24 hour nonstop tear.
posted on April 9, 2007 01:51:01 PM newWe don't allow groups of people to post the names and addresses of abortion doctors on the internet....WHY would THAT be? lol To protect them from the wackos that wound want to hunt them down and kill them.
So Linda by not posting your personal information, would it be safe to assume that even you think there should be limits to free speech if it would lead to violence.
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
---------------------------------- The duty of a patriot in this time and place is to ask questions, to demand answers, to understand where our nation is headed and why. If the answers you get do not suit you, or if they frighten you, or if they anger you, it is your duty as a patriot to dissent. Freedom does not begin with blind acceptance and with a flag. Freedom begins when you say 'No.'
posted on April 9, 2007 01:54:51 PM new
LOL gotta LOVE the confusion the liberals here cause for themselves.
No wonder they're so misinformed.
First of all NO ld....it was the liberals and IS the liberals that approve of burning our flag as a method of free speech.
Your are WRONG.
=============
On comparing nambla, which I believe you have defended here before.
There IS a HUGE difference in burning a flag, say, as it hurts NO ONE.
Yelling, FIRE in a threatre can cause hurt/injury to others. As does the nambla platform. All they stand for is ABUSE of our children. Our children are live human beings....that don't need the aclu encouraging their continuation...their molestation of children...by USING their 'speech'. Nope.
totally different. I understand YOU can't grasp the difference...that's why I used the example of the abortion doctors addresses. That could too be definded as 'free speech' but it also could cause the 'fire' [injury/harm] to come to them. So it's not allowed.
Again...I've pointed out not ALL free speech is free.
Don't pretend it is.
UNLESS you're going to say here in front of everyone that IF a man stands on any street corner in America and calls for the beating to death of all gay men...is okay with you.
After all that's just HIM using his 'free speech'????
I don't believe you'd ever agree with that nonsense...so QUIT pretending.
posted on April 9, 2007 02:03:12 PM new
"Despite all your fears, there is no judge that will allow an adult to have sex with a child or say it is an adult's right to have sex with whomever he/she pleases."
Not here YET. But I did post that group in scandanavia that is working to change THEIR laws so they can. Remember I mentioned them when we were discussing how gays being married there was, imo and the study I present, showing stastically that it was devaluing marriage?
Yep....there are some of these perverts calling for just what YOU deny. And as with most liberal things....they soon come to America.
"No crime is being committed when a group speaks about having sex with a child. The crime is committed when the actual act occurs. DO YOU UNDERSTAND?"
Tell me whether I could call for your beating and NOT be arrested. Tell me I could use as my EXCUSE ....my right to promote beating gays as 'free speech'.
that's nonsense. And no different than what nambla is doing. And the aclu DEFENDING by paying their legal fees. Why can't they PAY their own? Like any other pervert that hurts our children?
posted on April 9, 2007 02:13:29 PM new
"I have never called for a beating or killing against you Linda. Only in your dreams are you imagining such as thing."
Well...you're the one saying IF it's just being DISCUSSED and not actually being carried out...then it's OKAY under free speech.
NOPE it's not.
===========
Also try and read what I actually DID write...not how you incorrectly read the written word.
I never said you said you want to beat me or kill me.
I used the word ABUSE.
And that you have done here many many times with your vulgarity/crudeness/etc. about sex between my son and I. Your other comments on his service to our Nation.
Don't play dumb. Few who read what you wrote have forgotten.
posted on April 9, 2007 02:16:28 PM newAgain...I've pointed out not ALL free speech is free. Don't pretend it is.
I never said that it was. I agree that some speech should be limited.
it was the liberals and IS the liberals that approve of burning our flag as a method of free speech.
Exactly, you dont want the flag being burned so you are not saying it a form of expression. OTHERWISE YOU WOULD BE A HYPROCRITE CALLING FOR THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND THEN DENYING IT.
The US Supreme Court has already ruled that flag burning is a form of free speech
So you are a hyprocrite. You call for freedom of speech but then have to say flag burning is not in order to justify your reasoning.
On comparing nambla, which I believe you have defended here before.
In my opinion NAMBLA is no difference between the KKK or any other group that is promoting hate or violence. Linda, I do not see you making any of the same arguments against these groups. Your homophobia is showing through because you constantly bring up NAMBLA as your example.
As does the nambla platform. All they stand for is ABUSE of our children. Our children are live human beings
So that is your so called claim sex equals abuse. I guess now you are going to say when a 45 year old man has sex with a 17 year that will not be abuse, but it is abuse when it is done with a 15 year old. Having sex with a child does not kill a child (in most cases).
A sexual act does not inflict a beating or a killing like the other example you gave of a man stands on any street corner in America and calls for the beating to death of all gay men...
UNLESS you're going to say here in front of everyone that IF a man stands on any street corner in America and calls for the beating to death of all gay men...is okay with you. After all that's just HIM using his 'free speech'????
It already is being done Linda. Do you need more information about the so called reverend Phelps.
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
---------------------------------- The duty of a patriot in this time and place is to ask questions, to demand answers, to understand where our nation is headed and why. If the answers you get do not suit you, or if they frighten you, or if they anger you, it is your duty as a patriot to dissent. Freedom does not begin with blind acceptance and with a flag. Freedom begins when you say 'No.'
The US Supreme Court has already ruled that flag burning is a form of free speech
LINDA: Yes, and the REPUBLICANS tried to change that. You SAID they supported the burning of the flag. As a congressional group....just the opposite was true. You were WRONG.
So you are a hyprocrite.
Linda - No. I agree with the republican party that the burning of our flag should NOT be allowed. It is a symbol of all America has ever stood for since our beginning. To burn it shows total lack of disrespect for our founding fathers who were SOooo happy to see it still waving when the war settled down. It has always meant what America stands for.
And liberals approve of disrespecting it. Get your story straight so we can at least get past this one issue you're confused about.
You call for freedom of speech but then have to say flag burning is not in order to justify your reasoning.
Linda: answered above.
=========
Linda: On comparing nambla, which I believe you have defended here before.
In my opinion NAMBLA is no difference between the KKK or any other group that is promoting hate or violence.
Linda: promoting hate and violence comes from all extremists groups. MOLESTING our children is a whole different ball game, imo. We are the PROTECTORS of our children....not choosing the rights of some perverted groups who want 'sick right' to molest them OVER their 'right' to be SAFE from these sickos.
Let them DEFEND themselves. That doesn't take away their 'free speech'...their promoting of molesting children. But to actually DEFEND their group.....no way.
That would be like me defending the KKK. It's sick and wrong. And liberals want to allow all this perverted behavior to be protected....just as they do our enemies 'right's. they want to destroy us and liberals want to protect them. That's just CRAZY thinking.
==================
Linda, I do not see you making any of the same arguments against these groups.
Linda: NOTE....I've never defended their behaviors. NEVER. So it's not the same as what you and the aclu are doing for the perverts.
Your homophobia is showing through because you constantly bring up NAMBLA as your example.
Linda: See what I mean. I don't approve of perverts MOLESTING our children and the aclu defending them...and because of that you throw some inappropriate word at me. LOL Doesn't make it true. Just shows you have to call others names all the time when they don't see your world view the same way.
Linda:
Homophobia has NOTHING to do with child molestors, ld. get a clue.
Linda: Although there are some gay pedophiles who are in nambla.
Linda: As does the nambla platform. All they stand for is ABUSE of our children. Our children are live human beings
So that is your so called claim sex equals abuse.
Linda: When it comes to children, yes.
I guess now you are going to say when a 45 year old man has sex with a 17 year that will not be abuse, but it is abuse when it is done with a 15 year old. Having sex with a child does not kill a child (in most cases).
Linda: It damages them for life. The younger - the worse it is. Are you now supporting these perverts from NAMBLA?
Linda: Or just going off on another of your 'fishing' trips. LOL
A sexual act does not inflict a beating or a killing like the other example you gave of a man stands on any street corner in America and calls for the beating to death of all gay men...
Linda: UNLESS you're going to say here in front of everyone that IF a man stands on any street corner in America and calls for the beating to death of all gay men...is okay with you. After all that's just HIM using his 'free speech'????
Linda: He's NOT actually DOING anything...according to you...except using his 'free speech'.
Linda:
Should I have worded it that the man would be standing on the corner calling on all males to sexual molest them up their rear ends? Is that more understandable to you than me using the example of calling for their beating/death? GAWD....it's the same thing. Calling for the abuse of another human being is NOT a right ANY person has. And that includes those from NAMBLA. And it's CERTAINLY NOT 'free speech'.
It already is being done Linda.
Linda: That's NOT an answer. Does that mean it should continue and be supported/defended by the aclu? Does that make it right?
Do you need more information about the so called reverend Phelps.
Linda: No I don't.
And I want to say something else.
One of the problems the religious right has with the gay agenda in getting speech banned....calling it hate speech...is because they're worried that it would then mean they can't teach what their religion teaches. That gay relationships are not accepted/normal in their faiths eyes.
I'm not talking about these far right nutcases...I'm talking about everyday pastors/preachers. THey're not going to let you gays ban their ability to speak their OWN religious views. Whether you agree with them or not.
THAT is the side problem from this hate speech/free speech issue as I see it.
posted on April 9, 2007 03:39:55 PM new
I also wanted to be sure and state that it is MY opinion that the whole bases for our founding fathers putting the 'protection of free speech' in the constitution was to PROTECT citizens from being dealt with severely by the GOVERNMENT if they spoke against it.
Not so much all this PC garbage that we now find ourselves in.
Back in their day...child molestors would have been SHOT on the spot. Not allowed to be protected under the PC garbage of 'free speech' anyway.
posted on April 9, 2007 04:36:15 PM newLINDA: Yes, and the REPUBLICANS tried to change that. You SAID they supported the burning of the flag. As a congressional group....just the opposite was true. You were WRONG.
I said they were in FAVOR OF A FLAG BURNING AMENDMENT. If you would have done your reserach the amendment they were proposing about flag burning was not to allow the flag to be burn.
I did not say the Republicans were in favor of allowing the flag to be burned. You just wanted to think that is what I said.
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
---------------------------------- The duty of a patriot in this time and place is to ask questions, to demand answers, to understand where our nation is headed and why. If the answers you get do not suit you, or if they frighten you, or if they anger you, it is your duty as a patriot to dissent. Freedom does not begin with blind acceptance and with a flag. Freedom begins when you say 'No.'
posted on April 9, 2007 04:42:54 PM newLinda: promoting hate and violence comes from all extremists groups. MOLESTING our children is a whole different ball game, imo. We are the PROTECTORS of our children....not choosing the rights of some perverted groups who want 'sick right' to molest them OVER their 'right' to be SAFE from these sickos.
You still do not get it.
The members of NAMBLA are not promoting molesting or abuse. They are promoting "love". It is not called the North American Man Boy Abuse Association. It is their opinion, that what they want to do is to "love another boy". You may see it anyway they want to. You have your opinion and the group has their own. It is not for you to decide if their intentions are legal. That is for a judge to decide.
In order to do that they have to present their case before a judge along with a prosecutor who presents their side. Each side requires a lawyer. The ACLU decided to defend NAMBLA on the grounds that they have a right to have their case presented.
This is what the ACLU is defending. Their right to have their case heard and their right to express what they feel is right. NAMBLA (in their eyes) is not advocating abuse or hate despite how you feel.
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
---------------------------------- The duty of a patriot in this time and place is to ask questions, to demand answers, to understand where our nation is headed and why. If the answers you get do not suit you, or if they frighten you, or if they anger you, it is your duty as a patriot to dissent. Freedom does not begin with blind acceptance and with a flag. Freedom begins when you say 'No.'
posted on April 9, 2007 04:58:33 PM newLet them DEFEND themselves. That doesn't take away their 'free speech'...their promoting of molesting children. But to actually DEFEND their group.....no way.
Only upright groups should have a lawyer.?That is not how the judicial system works.
Calling for the abuse of another human being is NOT a right ANY person has.
But yet you supported the torture methods for the Iraqi prisoners and terrorists. You got to be joking.
Your homophobia is showing through because you constantly bring up NAMBLA as your example.
Linda: See what I mean. I don't approve of perverts MOLESTING our children and the aclu defending them...and because of that you throw some inappropriate word at me. LOL Doesn't make it true.
You are clueless when it come to free speach. What I said was not hate speech. Saying you are a homophobe is not inappropriate. It is the truth. And it is my opinion. Just like it is your opinion to say what NAMBLA does is abuse.
Just shows you have to call others names all the time when they don't see your world view the same way.
You are a joke. You say this after you had some words in one of your posts in a thread to Kiara bleeped out because it was profane. You have called everyone else here every name in the book because according to you we do not support Bush or the war. It is no different then you calling anyone else here Anti-American. You are pathetic to call yourself a mother and one that supports family values.
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
---------------------------------- The duty of a patriot in this time and place is to ask questions, to demand answers, to understand where our nation is headed and why. If the answers you get do not suit you, or if they frighten you, or if they anger you, it is your duty as a patriot to dissent. Freedom does not begin with blind acceptance and with a flag. Freedom begins when you say 'No.'
posted on April 9, 2007 05:13:43 PM newIt already is being done Linda.
Linda: That's NOT an answer.
Too bad. It is happening. Look at the demonstrations by Phelps. When his groups holds up signs saying "fags must die". It certainly i is a form of hate speech, but I do not see it a promoting violence. I see it as his crazy opinion.
Should I have worded it that the man would be standing on the corner calling on all males to sexual molest them up their rear ends? Is that more understandable to you than me
You are not promoting free speech. You are promoting prostitution/sex. Are you trying to be a pimp or a madam? What you are actually promoting is illegal. There is a difference between what NAMBLA is promoting and what you are promoting by the way your worded "sign". I know you can not understand the difference. You will see both examples are molestation, but as I said before NAMBLA feels what they are do is not abuse but love. Your "sign" was promoting sex, possibly rape.
If you feel your "sign" is way of promoting love, then start a website and promote the heck out of it. You can have the ACLU defend your actions as well.
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
---------------------------------- The duty of a patriot in this time and place is to ask questions, to demand answers, to understand where our nation is headed and why. If the answers you get do not suit you, or if they frighten you, or if they anger you, it is your duty as a patriot to dissent. Freedom does not begin with blind acceptance and with a flag. Freedom begins when you say 'No.'
Are YOU a Bunghole?