Posted on 05/06/2015 1:43:34 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
He’s a Paki, giving us an assaholic lecture that the 1st amendment never protected hate speech until racist southerners interpreted it that way in the 50s and 60s.
As far gone from reality as the enemy is, I don’t think we can ever change them into anywhere close to our position on free speech and individual rights. They are determined to clamp down on us.
A battle line is clearly being drawn by them. A prudent person would ensure he was well armed and ready to teach them a nasty lesson when they move beyond words and try to become fascist in practice, as well as speech.
Look at that photo closely, this is what will come to your door eventually. Be ready.
enemy’s enemy isn’t always friend... she’s a libertine flavor of liberal (still more honest, if wrong, than the common liberal)
It’s a fool-the-ignorant move.
The only thing I hate is if I run out of ammo! fat chance.
The winning entry explains the issue perfectly. The drawings are made because the artist is told he is not allowed to.
When silence is construed as submission, belligerence is the only viable option to defend freedom.
Free speech is free speech. People can argue about the nuances, but denying that speaking freely is free speech doesn't work.
I understand about the Founders and the CoE. Where does the respect begin or end? Just what is a "muslim outreach program"? Why are we compelled to fund it? Why not a satanic outreach program? It's the same thing.
The winning entry was not hate speech by any reasoning whatsoever.
Seemed it was actually about as respectful a depiction of the issue as possible.
Sherman, set the WayBack Machine for the election of 1800:
"Jefferson has cheated British creditors, obtained property by fraud, and robbed a widow of 10,000 pounds." [If elected] "Murder, robbery, rape, adultery, and incest will all be openly taught and practiced,"
-- The Connecticut Courant
Forward to 1804, where Clement Moore, author of The Night Before Christmas managed to say of the sitting President of the United States:
[Jefferson] claims that “the male orang-utan prefers the female black, as being of an order superior to himself; and for the same reason, the negro shows a decided preference in favor of the whites — a notion he may have picked up from some French traveler.”
Yet “West-Indian mulattoes testify that the regard is mutual,” Moore continues, “and that white people do not feel the abhorrence which they might be naturally expected for an inferior and ugly set of beings.”
In which Moore manages to be defamatory, xenophobic and racist all in the same paragraph.
Oh, yeah... strident political speech started in the US in the 1960's. Riiiiiiiiiiiiggggggggggggggggggggghhhhhhhhhhhhtttttttt.
Like what most of what liberals believe: something made up.
I would agree with that.
If I am misunderstanding your premise, you’ll need to clarify for me.
That’s the modern liberal court view... the same kind of court that gave us the WOD you say you do not like. Be careful what you give the nod to.
Historically governments could AND DID cut deals with churches. What was verboten (first at Federal level, later at state level too) was setting a church up in a privileged position of pre-eminence like the national churches of the age.
Unwise does not equate to violating the originalist intent here.
BTW you're probably one of the few that can properly pronounce my FR name.
In 1779, Thomas Jefferson wrote the “Bill for Establishing Religious Freedom.” The bill declared that “no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place or ministry whatsoever.” ... In 1786, the bill passed with only a few changes.
Perhaps it was Achmed the dead terrorist who said it best:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qfResyFrqlM
So, now we have stooped so low as to allow a goat humping Jihadi to lecture us on America’s history?
“... I mean, I think I disagree” (Strawberry Fields)
Who’s this we, paleface
Well fine, it still did not negate the common practice of cutting deals with churches for various things. And so? Do we want to go down the liberals garden path for something that is not cost effective or politically effective or whatever ineffectiveness
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.