thank you for the ringing endorsement for freedom of speech....
Posted By: sam on 2008-08-26
In Reply to: Posters like this need to be left alone - To argue with themselves in a vacuum.
yet another reason why I would never vote for a Democrat.
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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
thats an endorsement
It is that deeply corrupt and the only thing they can come up on Obama is a dinner party at Ayers house as proof of wrong-doing? Good point. Has Ayres menaced, threatened or injured your sister in anyway?
This endorsement happened this morning....
She formally announced she is supporting McCain and will campaign for him.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/09/16/prominent-clinton-backer-and-dnc-member-to-endorse-mccain/
Did you bother to read the endorsement or simply
Think about it.
It appears that Roberts involvement in the case was not an endorsement per se. SM
![SF](http://www.sfgate.com/templates/sfgatelogo_xsm.gif") www.sfgate.com Return to regular view
Roberts Helped Group on Gay Rights
- By JON SARCHE, Associated Press Writer
Friday, August 5, 2005
(08-05) 19:27 PDT DENVER (AP) --
A decade ago, John Roberts played a valuable role helping attorneys overturn a Colorado referendum that would have allowed discrimination against gays free assistance the Supreme Court nominee didn't mention in a questionnaire he filled out for the Senate Judiciary Committee.
The revelation didn't appear to dent his popularity among conservative groups nor quell some of the opposition of liberal groups fearful he could help overturn landmark decisions such as Roe v. Wade, which guarantees a right to an abortion.
An attorney who worked with Roberts cautioned against making guesses about his personal views based on his involvement in the Colorado case, which gay rights advocates consider one of their most important legal victories.
"It may be that John and others didn't see this case as a gay-rights case," said Walter Smith, who was in charge of pro bono work at Roberts' former Washington law firm, Hogan & Hartson.
Smith said Roberts may instead have viewed the case as a broader question of whether the constitutional guarantee of equal protection prohibited singling out a particular group of people that wouldn't be protected by an anti-discrimination law.
"I don't think this gives you any clear answers, but I think it's a factor people can and should look at to figure out what this guy is made of and what kind of Supreme Court justice he would make," Smith said.
On Friday, Senate Judiciary Committee Republicans released two memos by Roberts when he was as an assistant counsel in the Reagan White House. In one, Roberts argued that President Reagan should not interfere in a Kentucky case involving the display of tributes to God in schools.
In the other, Roberts writes that Reagan shouldn't grant presidential pardons to bombers of abortion clinics. "The president unequivocally condemns such acts of violence," he wrote in a draft reply to a lawmaker seeking Reagan's position. "No matter how lofty or sincerely held the goal, those who resort to violence to achieve it are criminals."
Meanwhile, the Justice Department denied a request by Judiciary Committee Democrats for Roberts' writings on 16 cases he handled when he was principal deputy solicitor general during President George H.W. Bush's administration. The department also declined to provide the materials, other than those already publicly available, to The Associated Press and other organizations that sought them under the Freedom of Information Act.
"We cannot provide to the committee documents disclosing the confidential legal advice and internal deliberations of the attorneys advising the solicitor general," assistant Attorney General William E. Moschella wrote Friday to the eight committee Democrats.
Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont, the panel's senior Democrat, said Roberts made decisions whether to pursue legal appeals in more than 700 cases. "The decision to keep these documents under cover is disappointing," Leahy said.
The gay rights case involved Amendment 2, a constitutional amendment approved by Colorado voters in 1992 that would have barred laws, ordinances or regulations protecting gays from discrimination by landlords, employers or public agencies such as school districts.
Gay rights groups sued, and the measure was declared unconstitutional in a 6-3 ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1996.
Roberts' role in the case, disclosed this week by the Los Angeles Times, included helping develop a strategy and firing tough questions during a mock court session at Jean Dubofsky, a former Colorado Supreme Court justice who argued the case on behalf of the gay rights plaintiffs.
Dubofsky, who did not return calls Friday, said Roberts helped develop the strategy that the law violated the equal protection clause in the Constitution and prepared her for tough questions from conservative members of the court. She recalled how Justice Antonin Scalia asked for specific legal citations.
"I had it right there at my fingertips," she told the Times. "Roberts was just terrifically helpful in meeting with me and spending some time on the issue. He seemed to be very fair-minded and very astute."
Dubofsky had never argued before the Supreme Court. Smith said she called his firm and asked specifically for help from Roberts, who argued 39 cases before the court before he was confirmed as a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C., in 2003.
Smith said any lawyer at Hogan & Hartson would have had the right to decline to work on any case for moral, religious or other reasons.
"If John had felt that way about this case, given that he is a brilliant lawyer, he would have just said, `This isn't my cup of tea' and I would have said, `Fine, we'll look for something else that would suit you,'" Smith said.
The Lambda Legal Defense Fund, which helped move the case through the state and federal courts, said Roberts' involvement raised more questions about him than it answered because of his "much more extensive advocacy of positions that we oppose," executive director Kevin Cathcart said.
"This is one more piece that will be added to the puzzle in the vetting of John Roberts' nomination," Cathcart said.
The Rev. Lou Sheldon, founder of the Traditional Values Coalition, said his support for Roberts' nomination has not diminished. "He wasn't the lead lawyer. They only asked him to play a part where he would be Scalia in a mock trial," Sheldon said.
Focus on the Family Action, the political arm of the Colorado Springs-based conservative Christian ministry Focus on the Family, said Roberts' involvement was "certainly not welcome news to those of us who advocate for traditional values," but did not prompt new concerns about his nomination, which the group supports.
"That's what lawyers do represent their firm's clients, whether they agree with what those clients stand for or not," the group said in a statement.
URL: http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/n/a/2005/08/05/national/w135401D98.DTL
I agree, but - he got an endorsement from an evangelist but he didn't attend the church for 20 ye
McCain did get an endorsement from a radical evangelist, but I don't think it involved racism or hate, he is just sort of "out there." However, McCain did not attend his church(was it Hagee, not sure), just got an endorsement from him. That is a huge difference from attending the church for 20 years under him.
"kill him" speech is not acceptable free speech - it is against the law - nm
x
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!
and I'd like to keep my religious freedom sm
without having to answer to the Christian right. If they had their way, we'd all be wearing babuskas and having a kid or two every year, paying homage to them at a tithe of 10% and having to hate all other religious ideologies.
Freedom is an illusion
What is sad is the idea that an entire political party would align itself with, unite itself behind and extend its unquestioning support to a president and administration who behave like closet fascists. Thank heavens their glory days are past us now and we can begin counting down their time in office in measures of months, weeks or days.
Even more regrettable is the fact that both parties and their supporters are so blissfully unaware of and so openly hostile toward the issues that plague their fellow Americans and accept the catastrophic damage that has been inflicted as business as usual. These issues in no way are confined to the war, although it is by far the most pressing one at the moment. It is difficult to know where to begin a laundry list of the grievances, but the demise of our civil liberties, the flagrant disregard of the constitution and the disappearance of freedom of speech come to mind.
Ask any democrat just how free they have felt over the past 8 years to express their dissent and listen to the response as one American to another, not as republican to democrat. This is only one of many steps that we will need to take as a nation to heal the wounds of division that currently afflict us. We are all saddened by this state of affairs and that is the common ground from which we start our search for solutions in resolving our differences and coming together as a nation.
Who started what and why is an exercise in endless frustration. The question is where do we go from here?
Religious freedom.
dd
Freedom of Choice Act
The Freedom of Choice Act would make abortion a federal issue and would basically do away with any restrictions on abortion. There are many state level FOCA acts already, but this would be the first time that it would be a federal act. I'm not a legal brain so I'm not sure if I am explaining this 100%. From reading both sides of the issue, it will basically lift all restrictions on getting abortions, meaning going in and having an abortion will be as simple as going in and having a check up.
To me that is just a new form of birth control and completely unacceptable. Yes, women have the right to choose. They have the right to choose to wait to have sex and to use good judgment. They have a right to choose to not sleep around. They have a right to birth control and requiring a man to wear a condom.
I understand there are dire situations, such as rape, incest, and in cases where the mother's PHYSICAL health is at risk. While I don't believe in abortion at all and wish it had never been thought of, I do sympathize with those mothers, and yes something should be done to help them. But to just say "hey abortions for everyone!!" is ridiculous! You know as well as I that most abortions are done simply because having a child would be an inconvenience. That is not right! If you don't want the consequence of having a child, then keep your legs closed! Sorry!
Freedom of religion....(sm)
also includes freedom FROM religion. It's funny to me that, as you said, people came to this country for freedom of religion (among other things). Now that they're here christians try to impose the very problems associated with those in Britian on the people of this nation. Christians are constantly trying to force their will upon others through politics. Please explain to me how that demonstrates freedom of religion. Doesn't that just put us back where we were?
Freedom of religion is a live and let live proposition....not a winner takes all competition.
NBC has the freedom to reject the ad!
The Catholic church has the freedom to produce the ad, NBC has the freedom to reject the ad, and everyone in this country has the freedom to choose whether or not they watch NBC. That is how it should be, freedom for everyone!
Just another freedom chiseled away....sm
in the guise of healthcare.
This administration is going to do its best to make us a one party system, a people dependent entirely on the government, where over half are on the govt dole, and the other have of us slave to pay for it, and the more government there is, the less freedom we each will have.
This health plan, not to mention the rest of which is to come, is just one less freedom, that we each will have.
One day, these children will wake up and see what they have cost us, and what they no longer have.
Please name one freedom that Obama has taken away...nm
x
Oh please - no one is losing their freedom
I read the article. Their freedoms are not being taken away. However, they are treating the home like it is a business and bring the congregation to a private home conducting business there without a license. This should be kept in the churches.
The "homosexual community" had nothing to do with this and no where in the article does it say that.
You'll be the first to try and take away the rights of the gays and lesbians, but you sure don't like it back do ya.
Freedom of religion........ sm
is one of the foundation blocks of this country, not freedom FROM religion. Every person in this country is, based on the constitution, free to worship (or not worship) in any form they choose. I think that Obama's statement reflects his political viewpoint and gives us an insight into what is most important to him, which is politics at its best with no regard for God in any form or fashion.
Yes, you have the freedom to LEAVE
if you don't like the direction our country is heading. You LOST. The Good Guys Won. Deal with it!! Get behind our President and our Country. Or LEAVE! We don't need treason like this you are expressing.
Yep. Kiss freedom goodbye!
U.S. learns to live with less freedom...sm
U.S. learns to live with less freedom
Jun. 19, 2006. 05:30 AM
TIM HARPER
WASHINGTON BUREAU
MANCHESTER, N.H.The fierce cultural aversion to the long reach of government is emblazoned on every licence plate here, an omnipresent statement that should make Rich Tomasso's job easier.
But even a man who makes it his business to protect individual liberties in a state where no government would dare collect a sales tax or personal income tax or force a seatbelt around a driver or a helmet on a motorcyclist has to face some harsh realities in George W. Bush's America.
People are more afraid of terror than having their privacy violated, says Tomasso, chair of the New Hampshire Liberty Alliance. For so long the rhetoric has been about fear, not hope and more traditional American values.
Live Free or Die is not just a cheesy licence plate slogan in this tiny New England state. But even New Hampshire is not immune to the national erosion of civil liberties that has permeated every part of the United States since terrorists forced their way into airline cockpits almost five years ago, taking away a nation's bravado and replacing it with fear.
The exploitation of that fear by an administration intent on inflating the powers of the presidency, at the expense of a cowed Congress and with the tacit approval of an anxious nation, may be a cautionary tale for Canadians should some of that U.S.-style fear find its way north of the border in the wake of Toronto's recent terrorism arrests.
In recent years, it has become a truism that Americans will trade away some liberties because they have been attacked. Canadians have not.
But where is that rugged U.S. individuality that had helped define this nation?
America - Freedom to Fascism
It must be starting using the military as guinea pigs. This idea of implanting chips is included toward the end of this scary trailer for America - Freedom to Fascism. I definitely recommend viewing it. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1616088001333580937
Excuse me....there is already freedom of the airwaves....
you are the one who needs to brush up. Aren't you the party of freedom of speech and freedom of the press? It is not Rush's fault that liberals do not support liberal radio stations by listening to them...that is why they go bankrupt. If you guys want a liberal radio station, you have to actually LISTEN to them so they will stay in business...not seek to silence others. That is completely undemocratic and unAmerican.
It's called freedom of choice as
I hope to have after this election. That's the beauty of freedom, you get to choose.
We'll all be broke with no more freedom (nm)
x
Enjoying my freedom until Obama gets in.
nm
|
