Speak Free or Die!

[WHO IS SERAFIN]

Yup we conservatives must unite to obliterate these leftist fascists in our mists that would choose for us on what freedom of speech is acceptable.

I damn sure didn’t go to war for this country twice to come home and be told by a bunch of homely chicks with daddy issues, effete literary fops scandalized by the notion of resistance to Third World pathologies, and nimrod sons of politicians playing at journalism what I can and can’t say. And I don’t think most Americans are ready to have everything they speak, write, or think perused for possible hate criminality by these same goose-stepping creeps.

We’d rather die than “live” on our knees, begging permission to exercise the right God gave us to say whatever we damn well please, whenever we damn well please, and in the manner we damn well please. And those who want to shut us up better be equally committed if they want to succeed.

After Garland, they went too far. They showed their hand and their goal, a world where they decide who gets to say what. Imagine the same hysterical social justice drama queens who shriek about microaggressions getting to decide what you can and can’t say. Just understand, you fascist bastards, that if you want to be Nazis, you’ll need to do what the Nazis did and find some armed thugs – yeah, I’m using the word “thugs” whether you like it or not – to come stop us. Tell them to wear Kevlar.

Garland and the sorry aftermath of terrorist apologetics that followed were a warning to every freedom-loving American, as well as an illustration of what one freedom-loving American with training and a Glock can do against the forces of totalitarianism. These jihadi savages tried to silence and intimidate all free Americans. They failed.

Progressives mutter without conviction about how they can’t support violence, but … but … but, in fact, they do support violence. It’s not just their chilling with bomb-planting guys around the neighborhood and free passes for the looters in Ferguson and Baltimore. They support whatever it takes to silence us.
http://townhall.com/columnists/kurtschlichter/2015/05/11/speak-free-or-die-n1996058

 

[Mercedes01]

2 sentences please.

 

[DrLeftover]

Do you have the right to go to the movie tonight at the multiplex, and, about ten minutes into the show, stand up and start shouting "Fire!"?

 

[+paradox]

that's idiocy at it's finest...

just because you serve in the military doesn't grant you everything...

 

[WHO IS SERAFIN]

Do you have the right to go to the movie tonight at the multiplex, and, about ten minutes into the show, stand up and start shouting "Fire!"?

Are you trying to compare free speech to speaking your mind in writing, verbally or with illustrations to yelling fire at a movie theatre?

 

[WHO IS SERAFIN]

that's idiocy at it's finest...

just because you serve in the military doesn't grant you everything...

Where did he say it grants him everything? Free speech is idiocy at it's finest? He is saying he tired of deciding what is appropriate free speech. When in fact all even the stuff you can't stand and want to beat the crap out of the person for saying it is appropriate free speech. That is what it grants him.

 

[DrLeftover]

Are you trying to compare free speech to speaking your mind in writing, verbally or with illustrations to yelling fire at a movie theatre?

Just making the point that is so often overlooked in these discussions:

That you DO NOT have the RIGHT to say anything you want, any time you want, any where you want.

That also carries over to the written word, and now, the Net.

Further example: "tweeting a bomb threat".

 

[WHO IS SERAFIN]

Just making the point that is so often overlooked in these discussions:

That you DO NOT have the RIGHT to say anything you want, any time you want, any where you want.

That also carries over to the written word, and now, the Net.

Further example: "tweeting a bomb threat".

True and do not believe that is what the author is saying.

 

[Webster]

FWIW, Schlichter's dead-t0-rights correct here; part of living in a free and open society is the exchange of ideas, irrespective of others' opinions. One of the things that makes America such a great country - among other things - is this very right; in most countries, we might not be able to have such a vibrant and thrashing kind of debate but here, within certain - and very delineated limits - you can pretty much speak your piece, confident in the knowledge that the government cannot overtly censor or stop you from saying it.

Now, this doesn't mean that the court of public opinion can't weigh in, but it means that the government can't stop you without a good reason to do so.

 

[mrldii]

Wait. I'm confused. Is the person who yells "Fire" in a crowded theater or "tweets a bomb threat" one of the "homely chicks with daddy issues"/ "effete literary fops scandalized by the notion of resistance to Third World pathologies"/"nimrod sons of politicians playing at journalism" or is that person someone who's exercising "the right God gave us to say whatever we damn well please, whenever we damn well please, and in the manner we damn well please"?


Are they one of "us" or one of "them"? Who's who and What's on second? :???2:

 

[Webster]

Wait. I'm confused. Is the person who yells "Fire" in a crowded theater or "tweets a bomb threat" one of the "homely chicks with daddy issues"/ "effete literary fops scandalized by the notion of resistance to Third World pathologies"/"nimrod sons of politicians playing at journalism" or is that person someone who's exercising "the right God gave us to say whatever we damn well please, whenever we damn well please, and in the manner we damn well please"?


Are they one of "us" or one of "them"? Who's who and What's on second? :???2:

*scratches head in thought* No, I think those are two different groups, Mrldii...I could be wrong, of course.

 

[+paradox]

Where did he say it grants him everything? Free speech is idiocy at it's finest? He is saying he tired of deciding what is appropriate free speech. When in fact all even the stuff you can't stand and want to beat the crap out of the person for saying it is appropriate free speech. That is what it grants him.

with his tone he's acting like just because he served his country that laws don't apply to him... and you need to go back to school to learn how to read, i never said free speech is idiocy at it's finest, but his words are... there's laws that tell you that you can't do or say certain things, if you don't like it then try to get the law you dislike changed instead of trying to make yourself unworthy of said laws just because you served in the military...

just because you serve in the military doesn't make you above the laws when you come back from war or serving, just like everyone else...

i disagree with many laws in this country, but i'm not going to try to bitch and complain and try to get my 10 mins of fame by being an ignorant tool...

 

[WHO IS SERAFIN]

with his tone he's acting like just because he served his country that laws don't apply to him... and you need to go back to school to learn how to read, i never said free speech is idiocy at it's finest, but his words are... there's laws that tell you that you can't do or say certain things, if you don't like it then try to get the law you dislike changed instead of trying to make yourself unworthy of said laws just because you served in the military...

just because you serve in the military doesn't make you above the laws when you come back from war or serving, just like everyone else...

i disagree with many laws in this country, but i'm not going to try to bitch and complain and try to get my 10 mins of fame by being an ignorant tool...

No his tone is saying he served this country for what are very simply written rights for all to understand and then practice those rights. And yet these very left thinking people who are supposed to be the smartest can't read the simple language and insist saying things that offend them can't be said. Insist the first amendment is not there for when others might find it offensive beyond all other words. No where in there does he mean, has meant or wants to mean he is above the law or should be above the law.

 

[WHO IS SERAFIN]

FWIW, Schlichter's dead-t0-rights correct here; part of living in a free and open society is the exchange of ideas, irrespective of others' opinions. One of the things that makes America such a great country - among other things - is this very right; in most countries, we might not be able to have such a vibrant and thrashing kind of debate but here, within certain - and very delineated limits - you can pretty much speak your piece, confident in the knowledge that the government cannot overtly censor or stop you from saying it.

Now, this doesn't mean that the court of public opinion can't weigh in, but it means that the government can't stop you without a good reason to do so.

Leftists and progressives want no true first amendment! Hell there thinking tries to silence me by other means in political discussions on a regular basis. Where when conservatives like me think they are no less wrong and no less loony tunes for the straight jacket I would rather go in jail before that thought even crossed my mind. The difference is I have ZERO desire to stop them. Where if they had the power or option they just could not let those words they disagree with stand and would shut it down even with a bullet to the brain if it has to go that far. We have had our own leftist president in the past lock up thousands for saying and writing things they did not like.

 

[mrldii]

...We have had our own leftist president in the past lock up thousands for saying and writing things they did not like.

Which "leftist president" was that?

 

[+paradox]

No his tone is saying he served this country for what are very simply written rights for all to understand and then practice those rights. And yet these very left thinking people who are supposed to be the smartest can't read the simple language and insist saying things that offend them can't be said. Insist the first amendment is not there for when others might find it offensive beyond all other words. No where in there does he mean, has meant or wants to mean he is above the law or should be above the law.

him saying this: "begging permission to exercise the right God gave us to say whatever we damn well please, whenever we damn well please, and in the manner we damn well please." means that he thinks he can say whatever he wants, where ever and whenever, but there's laws that forbid him from doing that... so again, he likes to think he's above the law just because he served his country... or am i missing something here?

 

[Webster]

Which "leftist president" was that?

Woodrow Wilson, for starters; according to most historians, his administration was the low point for free speech in America; indeed, a decent chunk of the relevant case law on free speech is descended from Wilson's attacks on free speech, especially following America's entry into World War 1 starting with Schenck v. United States and proceeding thereon...

 

[+paradox]

Leftists and progressives want no true first amendment! Hell there thinking tries to silence me by other means in political discussions on a regular basis. Where when conservatives like me think they are no less wrong and no less loony tunes for the straight jacket I would rather go in jail before that thought even crossed my mind. The difference is I have ZERO desire to stop them. Where if they had the power or option they just could not let those words they disagree with stand and would shut it down even with a bullet to the brain if it has to go that far. We have had our own leftist president in the past lock up thousands for saying and writing things they did not like.

you'd like to think that republicans and conservatives aren't progressives, which you're clearly wrong, because you're a progressive in one way or the other as well...

 

[+paradox]

Woodrow Wilson, for starters; according to most historians, his administration was the low point for free speech in America; indeed, a decent chunk of the relevant case law on free speech is descended from Wilson's attacks on free speech, especially following America's entry into World War 1 starting with Schenck v. United States and proceeding thereon...

i can nick pick all u.s. presidents and find that they "attacked" either free speech or something else that's important to the foundation of america as well... your point being?

 

[mrldii]

Woodrow Wilson, for starters; according to most historians, his administration was the low point for free speech in America; indeed, a decent chunk of the relevant case law on free speech is descended from Wilson's attacks on free speech, especially following America's entry into World War 1 starting with Schenck v. United States and proceeding thereon...

I'm not finding any reputable citations to prove the aforementioned "lock up thousands" under the Sedition Act of 1918, though I did find information regarding our forefathers locking up dissidents, also during [a] wartime.

Wartime law is a tricky, tricky subject.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Sedition+Act+of+1918