A trip down memory lane (a tea party thread)...

[OrByte]

The left favor free speech so long as it is restricted to them and the ideas they support. In that case it is "the highest form of patriotism". In all other cases it is something to be restricted, slandered, ridiculed, and demonized at all costs.

I completely agree.

OH please. Like the Right doesn't do the exact same thing.

It isnt a left or right thing it is a partisan hack thing

 

[bamacre]

What is ironic here is that the GOP and those on the Right criticized and demonized those protesters in the same manner as those on the Left have done to today's protesters. Of course, they didn't call them racists, they called them anti-American and unpatriotic. So, the hypocrites are calling out the hypocrites. Same shit, different day.

 

[Blackjack200]

Awarding damages for demonstrated damage inflicted by false statements is the total opposite of entitlement, but troll on...

You are clearly attempting to conflate all notions of "rights" with what is commonly refered to as "entitlement". While technically rights are things to which a person migth (rightfully) feel entitled, it is totally disingenuous to construe that as being the same as the political machine of "entitlements" as it is used in the vernacular. You know this, and you make this deceptive assertion anyways.

I was referring to "entitlement" in it's common usage form (not entitlements as referring to Social Security, etc.). If a judge awards damages to the party suing you, that is a good indication that you were not entitled, i.e. "had no right" to do what you did.

I used the word entitlement because Linflas and MotF Bane used it. Care to rejoin the conversation?

 

[nonlnear]

I was referring to "entitlement" in it's common usage form (not entitlements as referring to Social Security, etc.). If a judge awards damages to the party suing you, that is a good indication that you were not entitled, i.e. "had no right" to do what you did.

I used the word entitlement because Linflas and MotF Bane used it. Care to rejoin the conversation?

So you were originally intending the word to mean something that Linflas and MotF Bane would agree to completely, yet you were pretending that you found something ironic or contradictory? Interesting...

If it was just wordplay that's fine, but until you come out and say that you were intentionally meaning nothing substantial I'm disinclined to read it that way.

 

[Thump553]

I get a real kick out of the teabagger's imaginary repression of free speech in the USA. Just because others ridicule them or don't accept their premises, they feel their speech is being repressed.

You have the freedom of speech, the rest of us are not required to listen to you. Nor are we required to adhere to your beliefs. Get over it.

 

[Carmen813]

So when the tea party persons showed up at town hall meetings this past summer and screamed over the voices of people who disagreed with them, that wasn't suppressing free speech?

 

[Blackjack200]

So you were originally intending the word to mean something that Linflas and MotF Bane would agree to completely, yet you were pretending that you found something ironic or contradictory? Interesting...

My view that the first amendment does not entitle you to manufactured facts and lies is clear in my posts, and my posts were in response to Linflas and MotF Bane suggesting the opposite. You will have to ask them what they agree with.

If it was just wordplay that's fine, but until you come out and say that you were intentionally meaning nothing substantial I'm disinclined to read it that way.

You are the one that started the word games, and I never suggested that I meant nothing substantial.

 

[umbrella39]

This X ∞

Edit: The most closed minded people I have ever met have been far left liberals.

You should get out more.

 

[nonlnear]

You are the one that started the word games, and I never suggested that I meant nothing substantial.

By using the strictly construed meaning of entitlement, your point (that asserting rights is an instance of entitlement) reduces to a truism. i.e. totally insubstantial.

There is nothing wrong with using that strict construction but I wasn't expecting it, as your tone seemed to convey that you thought you had a point...

 

[Linflas]

My view that the first amendment does not entitle you to manufactured facts and lies is clear in my posts, and my posts were in response to Linflas and MotF Bane suggesting the opposite. You will have to ask them what they agree with.



You are the one that started the word games, and I never suggested that I meant nothing substantial.

The sky is red and that is a fact. I am posting from a lifeboat, my ship just sank. I just manufactured a fact and told a lie, feel free to take me to court.

 

[her209]

The 1st Amendment doesn't absolve someone of libel/slander.

 

[Blackjack200]

The sky is red and that is a fact. I am posting from a lifeboat, my ship just sank. I just manufactured a fact and told a lie, feel free to take me to court.

If I had reason to believe your statements, relied on them, and was damaged as a result, I would take you to court.

 

[Blackjack200]

By using the strictly construed meaning of entitlement, your point (that asserting rights is an instance of entitlement) reduces to a truism. i.e. totally insubstantial.

There is nothing wrong with using that strict construction but I wasn't expecting it, as your tone seemed to convey that you thought you had a point...

At this point I think you're either not reading my posts carefully, or trolling.

 

[Carmen813]

The 1st Amendment doesn't absolve someone of libel/slander.

Shutup you dirty dirty whore! Everything you post is liberal propaganda!


/sarcasm

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

I don't give a rat's ass about protesters on either side to be honest. Draw the line at violence and vandalism, but say whatever stupid crap you want, I don't care. I do howeverhave a problem with "journalists"/commentators/personalities who lie, deceive, and manufacture truthiness, present it as factual news, and spur on the crazies. The right has a monopoly on that, and seemingly on folks too stupid to see that they're being used. It's basically "fire" in a crowded theatre full of angry morons.

 

[MotF Bane]

Manufactured facts, propaganda, trolling, lies and hypocrisy are seditious and libelous, and are not protected speech.

Geez, you Paulbots are maroons.
--

You already lost. Go away.

The First Amendment doesn't entitle you to anything, it prevents the Government from passing laws abridging free speech. If you believe it entitles you to lies and manufactured facts you can test your belief by spreading malicious false rumors about the well-heeled and litigous minded celebrity of your choice.

The 1st Amendment doesn't absolve someone of libel/slander.

Libel and slander must be proven. Until it is proven in the court of law, it's free speech. Good luck.

 

[MotF Bane]

Shutup you dirty dirty whore! Everything you post is liberal propaganda!


/sarcasm

I thought you quit P&N.

 

[Blackjack200]

You already lost. Go away.

Libel and slander must be proven. Until it is proven in the court of law, it's free speech. Good luck.

Every crime must be proven in a court of law. What the fuck is the matter with you?

 

[Carmen813]

I thought you quit P&N.

Never said that, you need to re-read my post

 

[heyheybooboo]

You already lost. Go away.





Libel and slander must be proven. Until it is proven in the court of law, it's free speech. Good luck.

So.

When you can't argue the 'facts' you just argue, huh?

Good luck with that.

If you cannot comprehend torts of defamation, libel and false light, and the crime of sedition with respect to the first amendment, I've got a news flash for you:

You've already lost the debate.



--

 

[Atreus21]

What does this have to do with slander and libel?

 

[nonlnear]

At this point I think you're either not reading my posts carefully, or trolling.

There is only one person who is reading your posts carefully, and it's not you.
If asking for clarity is trolling, then so be it.

 

[her209]

What does this have to do with slander and libel?

Limits on the 1st Amendment.

 

[Sclamoz]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6b1VOAATNk&feature=sub&videos=jnqoqxcYzPA

This video makes a statement I've been previously unable to articulate.

I'm surprised by the left who appear to dislike the protesters in the tea party movement for their method, and for individuals among them who say or do stupid things.

I make the following admission: This is shot like a documentary, which means it's edited to point towards a desired conclusion. All the same, I posted this to point out the following: that protesters of the Obama administration are AT LEAST no crazier than the protesters of the Bush administration.

This is all politics. To its core.

Why don't we at the same time bring up the people who protested bush & the Iraq war were considered traitors, the teaparty are patriots. Yes they both use hyperbole in their slogans and signs, but what act deserves it more, a president raising taxes to cover our massive deficit or invading and occupying a country for no reason?

 

[Blackjack200]

Why don't we at the same time bring up the people who protested bush & the Iraq war were considered traitors, the teaparty are patriots. Yes they both use hyperbole in their slogans and signs, but what act deserves it more, a president raising taxes to cover our massive deficit or invading and occupying a country for no reason?

Don't confuse me. All I know is that when the president is black and progressive, it's time for me to suddenly start caring about paying taxes.