Useful Links

lets-retire · 11-01-2006, 08:03 AM

I think what he is saying is the libs feel freedom of speech is great unless someone is made to feel the least bit uncomfortable. If anybody is made to feel uncomfortable then the speech must be restricted, unless of course the speech was made by a lib, then it is just misunderstood.

Mr._johngalt · 11-01-2006, 08:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lets-retire

I think what he is saying is the libs feel freedom of speech is great unless someone is made to feel the least bit uncomfortable. If anybody is made to feel uncomfortable then the speech must be restricted, unless of course the speech was made by a lib, then it is just misunderstood.

Damn fine.

JG

azanon · 11-01-2006, 08:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lets-retire

I think what he is saying is the libs feel freedom of speech is great unless someone is made to feel the least bit uncomfortable. If anybody is made to feel uncomfortable then the speech must be restricted, unless of course the speech was made by a lib, then it is just misunderstood.

Oh i know what you mean now; like when my atheist kid is someday forced to listen to a classroom of students praying in the morning in a public school, and made to feel like an outcast if he doesn't do it too. So, those kinds of "freedom of speech". Ok, i'm with you now. Yeah, we dont like stuff like that.

Lets get back to which party is more likely to implement sexual inhibitions. This one's easy.

Azanon

brewer12345 · 11-01-2006, 08:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lets-retire

I think what he is saying is the libs feel freedom of speech is great unless someone is made to feel the least bit uncomfortable. If anybody is made to feel uncomfortable then the speech must be restricted, unless of course the speech was made by a lib, then it is just misunderstood.

You mean like when protesters are ejected from a "free speech zone" (AKA holding pen) because they drove to the president's speech with the "wrong" bumper sticker on their car?

You mean like when the vice president (emphasis on "vice") sends the FBI/Secret Service to harass a citizen who expressed his views of the administration's policies?

You mean like when the ruling party allows federal agents to run wild across the land without bothering with all that pesky subpoena stuff?

Sounds more like a Rethuglican issue to me.

Mr._johngalt · 11-01-2006, 08:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Azanon

Now i getting confused by the dual discussion. Are we discussion which party would implement more sexual prohibition of any kind or limitations relating to the first amendment? The reason i ask is because I think you're under the (mistaken) impression they're associated.

The party that tries to take away civil liberities is the Republicans.

Maybe this will help. Forget the party labels. I am saying "bleeding heart
libs" think they can protect every perceived slight and dent to fragile
egos/bodies/groups by passing more and more laws (hate speech and hate
crime laws are 2 good examples). Now I see they don't want any
contact during "recess" for kids. The same thing is true for "helmet laws"
"seat belt laws" , "gun laws", etc. Removing individual choice to protect us
from ourselves, so they can "feel good" and because they "care". It's all BS. Living is a contact sport. Passing goofy laws to try to protect everyone from
everything is immoral. In that way lies madness, and yet that is the way
we are going, as sure as the compass to the pole.

JG

brewer12345 · 11-01-2006, 08:27 AM

JG, I think you have been listening to the walking anus oxycontin addict for too long.

Mr._johngalt · 11-01-2006, 08:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by brewer12345

JG, I think you have been listening to the walking anus oxycontin addict for too long.

I love him like a brother. What can I tell you?

JG

brewer12345 · 11-01-2006, 08:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr._johngalt

I love him like a brother. What can I tell you?

JG

Nothing that your statement doesn't already tell me.

73ss454 · 11-01-2006, 08:30 AM

Birds of a feather flock together.

lets-retire · 11-01-2006, 08:35 AM

Azanon--You're speaking of different parts of the first amendment. The separation of church and state clause is not linked to the the free speech clause, except by a Congress shall not interfere with religion or free speech clause. The Supreme Court interpreted that to mean government can neither support or discourage the exercise of religion. The teacher, by allowing the hypothetical "classroom of students" to pray is in effect encouraging religion.

Brewer--Please provide links, from reputable sources, to your first two examples. Your third example is also from a different amendment. The right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures is in the fourth amendment not the first.

lets-retire · 11-01-2006, 08:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 73ss454

Birds of a feather flock together.

Yes, but do they listen to him because they agree with his opinions, or do they agree with his opinions because they listen to him?

Edited to add that darned smiley, I always forget.

Patrick · 11-01-2006, 08:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lets-retire

Yes, but do they listen to him because they agree with his opinions, or do they agree with his opinions because they listen to him?

Both! It's a vicious cycle. Just like Alan Colmes!

brewer12345 · 11-01-2006, 08:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lets-retire

Brewer--Please provide links, from reputable sources, to your first two examples. Your third example is also from a different amendment. The right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures is in the fourth amendment not the first.

Here is a link on the SS (heh) being used to intimidate exercise of free speech: http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/news.aspx?id=17479

Here is a link to the bumper sticker incident I mentioned: http://www.aclu.org/freespeech/gen/2...s20051121.html

The third example is part and parcel with the other two. Free speech isn't free if the gummint crawls all over your @ss every time you say something in public.

FinanceDude · 11-01-2006, 09:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by brewer12345

Here is a link on the SS (heh) being used to intimidate exercise of free speech: http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/news.aspx?id=17479

Here is a link to the bumper sticker incident I mentioned: http://www.aclu.org/freespeech/gen/2...s20051121.html

The third example is part and parcel with the other two. Free speech isn't free if the gummint crawls all over your @ss every time you say something in public.

On an aside, which group is MORE useless, the ACLU or the United Nations? I'm having a problem choosing..................

73ss454 · 11-01-2006, 09:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lets-retire

Yes, but do they listen to him because they agree with his opinions, or do they agree with his opinions because they listen to him?

Edited to add that darned smiley, I always forget.

I have no idea why anyone would listen to him.

lets-retire · 11-01-2006, 09:16 AM

brewer-- The first article you posted is a one sided AP article. One thing I've learned going to way too many domestics is when you interview one person you walk out with a very slanted point of view. The second is a news release from a lawyer stating they are suing and again it is a one sided release. Neither is unbiased, hence both are unreliable.

Warrants are specifically addressed in a separate amendment. And all speech is not free. Speech used to incite other to commit crimes is not protected (it's called conspiracy to commit whatever crime, after certain elements are fulfilled), speech that has a strong probability of causing severe injury also is not protected (such as yelling "Fire" in a movie theater).

brewer12345 · 11-01-2006, 09:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lets-retire

brewer-- The first article you posted is a one sided AP article. One thing I've learned going to way too many domestics is when you interview one person you walk out with a very slanted point of view. The second is a news release from a lawyer stating they are suing and again it is a one sided release. Neither is unbiased, hence both are unreliable.

Warrants are specifically addressed in a separate amendment. And all speech is not free. Speech used to incite other to commit crimes is not protected (it's called conspiracy to commit whatever crime, after certain elements are fulfilled), speech that has a strong probability of causing severe injury also is not protected (such as yelling "Fire" in a movie theater).

So you listen to Rush, then?

lets-retire · 11-01-2006, 09:45 AM

Nope. I don't listen to any of the political/entertainment radio shows.

Mr._johngalt · 11-01-2006, 10:56 AM

And in case you think I am overstating this threat...........
within the last hour I heard on the news that law enforcement is using
a new device that works like a monitor for people under house arrest
(think Martha Stewart). It's for people convicted of drunk driving
who are considered to have a "drinking problem". Anyway, it is
attached to the offending party and checks their perspiration for
evidence of alcohol consumption. According to the lady on the news
this system is rapidly spreading. Yesterday I heard that the Chicago
mayor (who I believe is completely nuts) wants to add to the 2000 cameras
positioned around town to check up on the citizens. Brave New World...
here we come! Soma anyone?

JG