Posted on 11/07/2001 6:41:58 AM PST by Tatze
By the way, thanks for the e-mail listing. Here's to responding!
I love the pics you guys are putting up here. I think my fav is the one with the snake head-piece on her!!! Excellent!!
and what is this? They are on the run? Hiding from FReepers??? The Leftists, hiding from us?!! Someone must be doing something right! ::grin::
I have no idea what you do on your forum....and am not the least bit interested!
What I do find interesting is that in your frustration, you are blasting one person and threatening to sue when it is not that person's responsibility!! Anyone can take a picture from anywhere and post it on a forum. You seriously cannot believe that you can hold one person accountable for the actions of others he/she may not ever know....because they took a picture from that site and put it on yours? This person is not harassing you!!! If others place it there, it very likely isn't even the same people each time. So who will you sue???!!!! Everyone on the internet????? And you will get it to stick because ?????
They chose to express their opinions, placing a picture on your forum. Are you saying that because you find it distasteful you have a right to censor them, or sue this person? and the constitution and bill of rights mean what to you? freedom of speech and expression??? what country do you live in????? perhaps a move is necessitated on your part to a place where opposing opinions are unlawful!
What are your regulations on your forum? Maybe you need to change them so that they prohibit anyone from posting anything dissenting to your program!! That way you can enjoy everyone patting each other on the back and all being a bunch of "yes-men" and "yes-women".....unable to have any true thought of their own that may deviate from "The Program".
Maybe the real question here is, are you trying to be blinded to the fact that THE someone pictured perhaps does speak with a forked tongue ? Or is it the masses you are trying to blind and shield?
Even funnier....the fact that in your state of high adrenaline your letter was full of grammar mistakes and missing words! But, who noticed!!!
I am with the artist.....I do not believe words that come from the mouth of either Hilary or Bill Clinton. They have proved they cannot be trusted. Continue to hope there is "good" in them, if you like, but if you would examine past behavior the truth would be evident! I am sorry that you are blinded to it, and pray that your eyes will be opened before long. It is odd how some people can just exude evil, and it can show. The Clintons exude it, as does Steve Forbes and a few others!!! Just looking at them it can be seen. Maybe it is only clear to those who look from the eyes of the soul.
irritated by your irrational threatening! like a fly that can be flicked off!
FLICK!
|
The term is 'functional illiterate', you boob.
Just like a socialist...lying just like your heroes the Clintons.
In case you didn't notice, our President has a degree from an Ivy League school of some note...unlike your other idol Algore, who flunked out of Divinity School.
Oh, and he won his home state in the last election, unlike the disgraced Clinton/Gore losers.
Go crawl back under the rock you came from.
Where?
All I see is a juvenile DemocRAT disruptor.
Take a hike.
Darn! I was having such fun with Mr. Carville, too.
;-)
(just kidding...I knew Chester was not long for the FReeper world)
Have a nice day!
The problem with your analysis (and say this with the utmost respect for your opinion) is that the so-called free speech dispute is between private parties and as a result the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution never comes into play. I am absolutely 100% positive that if the parties involved in this dispute were to go to court on the premise that Hillary.com was violating the right of free speech within the constitutional sense, the court would certainly throw the case out and quite possibly impose sanctions against counsel for engaging in frivilous litigation. Also, the conduct of Hillary.com does not equate to "state action" simply because the website is an advocate for a public officer. Both the SCOTUS and the US Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit have established a very high threshold for a private organization to be held liable for constitutional violations as if the private person were acting as official arm of a governmental entity. Indeed, I just filed a brief with the US District Court for the SDNY addressing the exact issue. Trust me on this one: Hillary.com can not be held liable for depriving anyone of their First Amendment rights in violation of 42 USCS section 1983.
Hillary, She-wolf of the SS?
Note on this: Rush Limbaugh had asked a question over the air once:
g
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.