So basically it's a freedom of speech thing?
Posted By: Zville MT on 2009-05-06
In Reply to: I haven't reviewed the Hate Crimes bill....... sm - m
That's a scary thought! It would be illegal to say you're against people who are pedophiles? Because according to this bill (if this is what it means) they have the same rights as gay people.
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
So basically it's a freedom of speech thing?
That's a scary thought! It would be illegal to say you're against people who are pedophiles? Because according to this bill (if this is what it means) they have the same rights as gay people.
Freedom of speech, LOL
Freedom of speech? To get up there and state you believe A WHOLE SOCIETY OF PEOPLE, A WHOLE ETHNICITY OF PEOPLE OUGHT TO BE ABORTED? Yet, you people jump all over Cindy Sheehan when she rags on Bush, LOL..You jump all over anti war people when we scream..STOP THIS WAR..But NOW you are stating freedom of speech..LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL..Better to shut up now about Bennett, cause you sure are looking silly..
Ah, yes. Freedom of speech.
I remember it well.
It was a cute joke. In case any of you missed it before it was removed from the board, one of the many places it can be found is http://www.justpetehere.com/2004/11/george_bush_pas.html.
Better do it quickly, though, because this post is sure to be removed as soon as the Cons start whining again.
freedom of speech
Check out the St. Pete Times, Sunday, 11/13/05, The Perspective, article by Robin Blummer. Sorry I don't have the link but it is easy to find. Talk about scary. By the way, I see that there are a number of comments to posts listed on the board but they are not available to see. Is this a new policy...we know people read or responded but we can't see what the response is?
do you or do you not believe in freedom of speech....
and do you or do you not believe in the right of people to have opinions different from those and voice them? Is someone holding a gun to your head and forcing you to read my posts? You might be more comfortable in Russia where it is the policy of the counry to control thought that does not agree with the party line.
Freedom of speech.
Freedom of speech is freedom to all.
When watching TV if there is something I don't like I change the channel. I would suggest you do the same on this board instead of trying to silence those you don't agree with.
Keep on postin sam - you must be hitting home if there are those who want to silence you.
So is freedom of speech.
If the lady wants to talk about religion, so what? It's not like she's gonna get into office and make us all abide by her religion - Pa-leeeze!!!
Freedom of Speech? Think Again.
Hyscience
freedom of speech
Hillary said that Bill always was a hard dog to keep on the porch. So what. At least we weren't embroiled in an unjustified war, we had a SURPLUS in the treasury and the whole country wasn't going to the dogs. I believe in the 1st amendment - she can say whatever she wants. Take some cojones to talk about propriety................look at dubya and turd blossom.
Who's denying her freedom of speech.sm
What you guys want is for her freedom of speech to go unanswered. Since she is an army mom then we should worship her and allow her to dump on us because of our beliefs.
If she wants praise and high-fives she should be posting on the conservative board.
Its called freedom of speech
Hey, neocons, its called freedom of speech..part of our Constitution. Dont like it, dont read the posts, dont come on the liberal board to cause trouble..stay where you are safe on your own board..
Right on...freedom of speech...how dare we have that right
you included, of course.
Called freedom of speech....
both sides here have posted letters and blogs from private citizens. There are a lot of true things in the letter as well. Just to be fair.
Good for you - freedom speech
That's what I say! I'm not wild about Rush, and I can only take so much of Sean, but I do like a lot of conservatives who tell it like it is. Absolutely love Michael Savage (even though he is independent). I will also listen to Alan Colmes, Keith Olberman, and Rachel Maddow. I listen to them all and make my own decisions based on what I hear. I don't go with the party line telling me what I'm supposed to think and how I'm supposed to vote.
It's called Freedom of Speech. sm
and if you don't care what she has to say, then don't waste YOUR time responding. Enjoy your popcorn!!
it is called freedom of speech - nm
nm
It is not slander. It is freedom of speech
Generally speaking, defamation is the issuance of a false statement about another person, which causes that person to suffer harm. Slander involves the making of defamatory statements by a transitory (non-fixed) representation, usually an oral (spoken) representation.Typically, the elements of a cause of action for defamation include:
- A false and defamatory statement concerning another;
- The unprivileged publication of the statement to a third party (that is, somebody other than the person defamed by the statement);
- If the defamatory matter is of public concern, fault amounting at least to negligence on the part of the publisher; and
- Damage to the plaintiff.
A defense recognized in most jurisdictions is "opinion". If the person makes a statement of opinion as opposed to fact, the statement may not support a cause of action for defamation. Whether a statement is viewed as an expression of fact or opinion can depend upon context - that is, whether or not the person making the statement would be perceived by the community as being in a position to know whether or not it is true
Example: A defense similar to opinion is "fair comment on a matter of public interest". If the mayor of a town is involved in a corruption scandal, expressing the opinion that you believe the allegations are true is not likely to support a cause of action for defamation.
Under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, as set forth by the U.S. Supreme Court in the 1964 Case, New York Times v Sullivan, where a public figure attempts to bring an action for defamation, the public figure must prove an additional element: That the statement was made with "actual malice". In translation, that means that the person making the statement knew the statement to be false, or issued the statement with reckless disregard as to its truth. For example, Ariel Sharon sued Time Magazine over allegations of his conduct relating to the massacres at the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps. Although the jury concluded that the Time story included false allegations, they found that Time had not acted with "actual malice" and did not award any damages.
I.E., what the poster stated was freedom of speech, not slander, libel or defamation of character. It is a known fact that O hung around with not-so-nice people until he ran for President. Is that slander? Nope.
The poster was giving an opinion. That is freedom of speech. If it was slander, O would have be having a lot of lawsuits on his hands towards all the people who have ever stated anything against him, which would probably be around 250,000,000....including me...out of 300,000,000 people living in the USA.
The first amendment is freedom of speech. You are the one squelching it. sm
I said I agreed that I was not respecting the rules. YOU are not respecting freedom of speech. Obviously and easy to prove. However, I will from this point forward respect the rules and not post here. Anyway, I am not a conservative. I was just making a point. That has nothing to do with politics. It's too bad you must label everything when someone proves you wrong
thank you for the ringing endorsement for freedom of speech....
yet another reason why I would never vote for a Democrat.
Political correctness stifles freedom of speech. nm
spoken like a true freedom of speech liberal....NOT.
nm
if you accept and confuse slander as freedom of speech
I would not like to socialize with you.
They e basically being saying the same thing for days, that is why I am...
.
Bible verses would be freedom of speech - common sense!
xx
freedom of speech excludes and stops at slander and foul language...sm
You are slandering the President of the United States out of ignorance, shame on you!
Where is this written in the Constitution that it is allowed to grossly insult the President?
Even if I disagree with the decisions of the President, I would NEVER slander him.
I am an independent, not a liberal, and I never slandered Bush, although I very much disagreed with him.
Therefore there are presidential elections set every 4 years, when we can elect another President, but we are disrespecting ourselves by slandering the President the majority of the population voted.
And you are calling yourselves
American citizens?
What a hypocrisy.
You are insulting the incumbent President of the United States of America and it is not even PROVEN that he made mistakes up until now. That you disagree with him, does not make it a mistakes from O's side. Or do you want to say that you are better qualified to be the President of the United States?
Can you all look into the future, like Nostradamus?
True freedom of religion if you are Christian, or freedom to Islam,Buddhist, Hindu, Jew, agnostic, a
all are religious beliefs, and if you are looking for true FREEDOM, all must be tolerated, understood, and welcomed. cannot put parameters on FREEDOM
"kill him" speech is not acceptable free speech - it is against the law - nm
x
Basically,
Get off my back is about as simple as I can put it. I never said Laura Bush was drunk, so I don't see why you keep responding to my posts asking me to post a credible link to prove this.
There are "internet rumors" about her being drunk, mostly on liberal sites.
The link I posted in this thread is for liberal entertainment a "what if it was Hillary idea" so to speak. What I find ironic and even hypocritical is how you boast on the "TRUTH" in the "you probably are a liberal if..." article on the neocon board, but then come over here and throw your weight around about my post (the thread we're in now - let's not get it confused).
Hope you can understand this better, or even better you are staying on the conservative board so you will not get this response. Geez Louise.
You basically got that right.nm
x
Okay, so basically what you are saying is that
in a nutshell... 
I think we need change and I'm sure Obama will make mistakes, but McCain might as well said "I totally disrespect women." By picking Palin with no experience tells me he doesn't really care. JMO.
Protestwarrior.com is basically pro-war.
Read their website. Many of the conservatives are members on the conservative board.
Basically, that is what I am digging for...what you just said...
I am a registered Independent as well. I am a conservative, registered as an independent, and towing party lines for the sake of doing so is not for me either. When I said the "far left wing of the Democratic party"....I meant within that party are so-called far left wing, moderate Democrats and Conservative Democrats...according to the Democrats I have spoken with. And, as you say...it is the same with Republicans. Not all Republicans are conservative...Guiliani isn't. Thank you for your honest answers. Just trying to learn. Whatever we call ourselves politically, we are all Americans...just wanting to understand individuals and what they believe. Thank you again.
So basically anyone who does not agree...
with Mr. Obama is talking garbage....how open-minded of you. If Obama stood up and said "destroy all who disagree with me" would you be the first one to go after your shovel to storm the castle? LOL. Geeezzzzz. lol.
Basically what that means is (sm)
that the Dems have a majority so the Repubs can fillibuster all they want to, but when it comes to the final vote, if every Dem votes yes and every Repub votes no, the yes vote goes through because there would be more yes votes. It's just that there are more Dems than Repubs - they have the majority vote, just not enough to stop a fillibuster.
That's basically it in a nutshell. - sm
It truly doesn't matter. None of it. We citizens lose, no matter what happens.
Basically we do only have 2 choices s/m
Our whole election process needs to be revamped. To start with how about doing away with the electoral college? The popular vote should do just fine. Then there was the matter of redistricting under Clinton? Bush Sr? Junior? Bush Sr, I think, since the redistricting made it easier for the Republicans to win the electoral college vote. Our government corruption, I believe, begins with the election process.
So basically we are screwed either
way this plays out? My biggest fear is having democrats in total control of everything. I don't like idea at all. I know a lot of people are just wanting to get republicans out of the way since they blame Bush for everything.
The big picture is that government as a whole (all parties) were involved in this crisis and it really is going to take all parties to pull us out. We need a split to keep things under control. Our country cannot afford to let everything go extreme left like it appears to be doing. We need some contrast and balance. If Obama were more middle of the road and not so extreme left.....I might consider voting for him. But he is way too extreme left for me. As a conservative.....I don't like that at all.
So, you would basically destroy the US, (sm)
I think splitting the country up like that would do much more harm than good. We would wind up in the same situation as in the middle east....just a bunch of small factions (if you will) and total loss of control. Not one of these individual factions would be able to fend off foreign threats, much less threats from other factions. Individual factions would not be able to compete in a global economy. We have gained the power that we currently have by being a united country, and that would be totally lost. This would put us back to civil war days and in my opinion would not serve any real purpose other than to appease those who encourage separation of the country now.
Basically, you do have to be compensated......... sm
but if you want to keep your land because, for example, it is family land or your source of income, etc., you would lose it anyway.
Eminent domain
What you just said is basically racist.
nm
So basically the poorer I stay
the more I get?
Talk about your backwards logic!
Here is a whole list that basically fits
antichrist which some believe it could be the O. I had a study if this in the Book of Daniel, not only in Revelations. No matter who it is, better be ready. Some state middle age, 40's and 50's.
http://www.theprophecies.com/antichrist.html
Basically, it is the Democrats' fault...
if they would stop with the "gimme" programs and attach all of it to the public works that Obama is concerned about, make them accept a little responsibility with the free health care, foodstamps, and welfare checks...in hopes of getting them OFF those things...THEN Democrats would be doing something GOOD for people. Try lifting them OUT of poverty and teach them to work for what they get instead of REWARDING them for staying in poverty?? Hellooooo???
Basically it is the dems fault.
They are the ones who pushed the bailout of Wall Street. They are the ones who is giving more towards the bailout. They are the ones who made up this whole stimulus package that they are trying to push through by FRIDAY.. tomorrow. They promised O that this will pass with or without pub support. So, who's fault is it? The independent party?
Ogden basically feels that
censorship is unconstitutional. That was his reason for not having restrictions on certain websites in libraries and schools. However, as a parent, I do not feel comfortable knowing that people can go to porn sites in libraries where my child might see this or at school where children might pull this stuff up. If people want to look at porn on the internet, they can feel free to buy their own computer and watch it from the privacy of their home, but not where children can see. Also, I do not see why it was important to Ogden to oppose a law stating porn distributors had to verify with documentation the age of their models. Doing away with this law would make child pornography easier to do. Having a law making them prove the models age, to me, is a responsible thing to do and also will prevent underage children being used in lewd sexual acts.
I just cannot support a man who would not allow restrictions for obscene sights in public libraries and schools and not see why it is important to have laws to verify that a person is of legal age to be involved in pornography.
Seriously, pornography is intended for the privacy of our homes with adults. Not in public places or involving children whether those children be watching or actually involved in the porn.
This is not a personal attack on Obama. I honestly wouldn't like anyone if they had these views on pornography. I personally feel that all appointees should be scrutinized whether it be dem or pub. I think if we hold them to higher standards than we have, maybe we will start getting some honest people in Washington.
So basically we shouldn't capture
anyone for fear of picking up an innocent person. Kind of hard to do that since most of these terrorists blend right in with civilians and have no problem using civilians as human shields.
You still have not answered my question about how many in Gitmo were "tortured."
So there are no innocent people in our local prisons? I'm sure there are some but the majority of them are guilty.......just like Gitmo.
What was done was done in an attempt to protect Americans whether you want to believe that or not. Terrorists are NOT covered under the Geneva Convention. How fast we forget the horrible things that were done to use by terrorists. We weren't waterboarded or electrocuted. We were either beheaded or just simply blown up. Which would you prefer?
I believe that it refers to the work ethic basically...
not everyone is born rich, and we all have choices in life. We can "pull ourselves up with our bootstraps," work hard and try to get head, and it has worked for generation after generation of Americans. It worked for Barack Obama. He is someone who pulled himself up by his bootstraps, came from a very middle class family, worked through school, worked for scholarships, borrowed money, got an education and he is running for President of the United States.
Sarah Palin grew up as a child of two teachers in Alaska. She worked her way up, eventually worked as a sportscaster, then decided to work in public service because she wanted to serve. She started as a community advisor (same way Obama did), moved up to City council, to Mayor, then to governor, and now she is running for Vice President of the United States.
That is pulling yourself up by your bootstraps and succeeding, working hard for everything you got and not expecting someone to hand it to you.
That is what bootstrapping means to me.
Obama is basically a socialist. Look at his record
nm
Obama's tax plan basically takes away any
nm
Freedom
I just want to say THANK YOU for your opinion, which is very valid.
Ah, but being a bum is FREEDOM
after all, we can cook over a fire using a wal-mart cart as a grill. We can get jiggy with nature. You must be well aware that bears aren't the only ones who "do it" in the woods. Visiting the food pantry at the local church is always a treat! All that hamburger helper and no hamburger - but a squirrel will do in a pinch, provided you can nail one of the little buggers. It is an ADVENTURE!
|
