The horror.... the horror ....

Posts : 1165

happy jack wrote:

edge540 wrote:: I don't see any evidence of free speech being stifled, only you do.

Yes, I do – the free speech of those who erected and painted their message on the wall.

edge540 wrote:: Nobody ever said it was acceptable.

edge540 wrote:: …. the people against the wall ALSO have free speech rights.

By saying that those who dismantled the wall had the right to do so, you are saying that it was acceptable.
What else can you possibly be saying?

It's very simple, since there was no objection to dismantling the wall, nobody was deprived of free speech.
If you can't comprehend that simple fact I can't help you.

Posts : 6988

edge540 wrote:

happy jack wrote:

edge540 wrote:: I don't see any evidence of free speech being stifled, only you do.

Yes, I do – the free speech of those who erected and painted their message on the wall.

edge540 wrote:: Nobody ever said it was acceptable.

edge540 wrote:: …. the people against the wall ALSO have free speech rights.

By saying that those who dismantled the wall had the right to do so, you are saying that it was acceptable.
What else can you possibly be saying?

It's very simple, since there was no objection to dismantling the wall, nobody was deprived of free speech.
If you can't comprehend that simple fact I can't help you.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3538882/Tulane-University-fraternity-causes-uproar-campus-erecting-Trump-wall.html

In a video posted to YouTube, individuals can be seen grabbing the sandbags and tossing them into the street while fraternity members look on, one saying 'this is private property.'

That, edge, is what is known to anyone but the severely retarded as an "objection".

Posts : 1165

happy jack wrote:

edge540 wrote:

happy jack wrote:

edge540 wrote:: I don't see any evidence of free speech being stifled, only you do.

Yes, I do – the free speech of those who erected and painted their message on the wall.

edge540 wrote:: Nobody ever said it was acceptable.

edge540 wrote:: …. the people against the wall ALSO have free speech rights.

By saying that those who dismantled the wall had the right to do so, you are saying that it was acceptable.
What else can you possibly be saying?

It's very simple, since there was no objection to dismantling the wall, nobody was deprived of free speech.
If you can't comprehend that simple fact I can't help you.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3538882/Tulane-University-fraternity-causes-uproar-campus-erecting-Trump-wall.html

In a video posted to YouTube, individuals can be seen grabbing the sandbags and tossing them into the street while fraternity members look on, one saying 'this is private property.'

That, edge, is what is known to anyone but the severely retarded as an "objection".

Then I have no doubt that both criminal & civil charges will brought against the evil doers and the wall will be put back up since it's such an important free speech issue like you claim.
Let me know when that happens.
Or, maybe that will never happen because the fraternity simply wants to move on and forget the whole thing because they don't want to be seen as supporting a racist buffoon given that it has a history of racial insensitivity.

Posts : 6988

edge540 wrote:

happy jack wrote:

edge540 wrote:

happy jack wrote:

edge540 wrote:: I don't see any evidence of free speech being stifled, only you do.

Yes, I do – the free speech of those who erected and painted their message on the wall.

edge540 wrote:: Nobody ever said it was acceptable.

edge540 wrote:: …. the people against the wall ALSO have free speech rights.

By saying that those who dismantled the wall had the right to do so, you are saying that it was acceptable.
What else can you possibly be saying?

It's very simple, since there was no objection to dismantling the wall, nobody was deprived of free speech.
If you can't comprehend that simple fact I can't help you.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3538882/Tulane-University-fraternity-causes-uproar-campus-erecting-Trump-wall.html

In a video posted to YouTube, individuals can be seen grabbing the sandbags and tossing them into the street while fraternity members look on, one saying 'this is private property.'

That, edge, is what is known to anyone but the severely retarded as an "objection".

Then I have no doubt that both criminal & civil charges will brought against the evil doers and the wall will be put back up since it's such an important free speech issue like you claim.
Let me know when that happens.
Or, maybe that will never happen because the fraternity simply wants to move on and forget the whole thing because they don't want to be seen as supporting a racist buffoon given that it has a history of racial insensitivity.

So are the actions of the dismantlers justified, and acceptable to you, or not?

Posts : 1165

happy jack wrote:

edge540 wrote:

happy jack wrote:

edge540 wrote:

happy jack wrote:

edge540 wrote:: I don't see any evidence of free speech being stifled, only you do.

Yes, I do – the free speech of those who erected and painted their message on the wall.

edge540 wrote:: Nobody ever said it was acceptable.

edge540 wrote:: …. the people against the wall ALSO have free speech rights.

By saying that those who dismantled the wall had the right to do so, you are saying that it was acceptable.
What else can you possibly be saying?

It's very simple, since there was no objection to dismantling the wall, nobody was deprived of free speech.
If you can't comprehend that simple fact I can't help you.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3538882/Tulane-University-fraternity-causes-uproar-campus-erecting-Trump-wall.html

In a video posted to YouTube, individuals can be seen grabbing the sandbags and tossing them into the street while fraternity members look on, one saying 'this is private property.'

That, edge, is what is known to anyone but the severely retarded as an "objection".

Then I have no doubt that both criminal & civil charges will brought against the evil doers and the wall will be put back up since it's such an important free speech issue like you claim.
Let me know when that happens.
Or, maybe that will never happen because the fraternity simply wants to move on and forget the whole thing because they don't want to be seen as supporting a racist buffoon given that it has a history of racial insensitivity.

So are the actions of the dismantlers justified, and acceptable to you, or not?

Absolutely not, the perpetrators of this travesty should have been arrested, charged and convicted for their heinous, unspeakable, horrendous crimes. The drunknen frat boys will be psychologically damaged for life for being deprived of their Constitutional right of free speech.

Have any idea why it's not happening because after all this is 'the nail in the coffin of free speech'.

Posts : 6988

edge540 wrote:

happy jack wrote:

edge540 wrote:

happy jack wrote:

edge540 wrote:

happy jack wrote:

edge540 wrote:: I don't see any evidence of free speech being stifled, only you do.

Yes, I do – the free speech of those who erected and painted their message on the wall.

edge540 wrote:: Nobody ever said it was acceptable.

edge540 wrote:: …. the people against the wall ALSO have free speech rights.

By saying that those who dismantled the wall had the right to do so, you are saying that it was acceptable.
What else can you possibly be saying?

It's very simple, since there was no objection to dismantling the wall, nobody was deprived of free speech.
If you can't comprehend that simple fact I can't help you.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3538882/Tulane-University-fraternity-causes-uproar-campus-erecting-Trump-wall.html

In a video posted to YouTube, individuals can be seen grabbing the sandbags and tossing them into the street while fraternity members look on, one saying 'this is private property.'

That, edge, is what is known to anyone but the severely retarded as an "objection".

Then I have no doubt that both criminal & civil charges will brought against the evil doers and the wall will be put back up since it's such an important free speech issue like you claim.
Let me know when that happens.
Or, maybe that will never happen because the fraternity simply wants to move on and forget the whole thing because they don't want to be seen as supporting a racist buffoon given that it has a history of racial insensitivity.

So are the actions of the dismantlers justified, and acceptable to you, or not?

Absolutely not, the perpetrators of this travesty should have been arrested, charged and convicted for their heinous, unspeakable, horrendous crimes. The drunknen frat boys will be psychologically damaged for life for being deprived of their Constitutional right of free speech.

Have any idea why it's not happening because after all this is 'the nail in the coffin of free speech'.

It's not happening - in fact it's not even being considered - because the speech that was squelched was unpopular with the 'progressive' crowd. What doesn't seem to be sinking in for you is that this is precisely the type of speech that the 1st amendment was designed to protect.
But anyway, I wasn't saying that there should be arrests. I was just trying to find out if you think that denying someone the freedom to express their opinion is acceptable as long as their opinion is one with which you do not agree. Apparently, it is.

Posts : 1165

happy jack wrote:: It's not happening - in fact it's not even being considered - because the speech that was squelched was unpopular with the 'progressive' crowd.

Or as you call them the idiots and pussies. Yes that type of speech- bigotry, hate and racisim is unpopular with that crowd and of course very popular with the conservative crowd.

Posts : 2141

happy jack wrote:

edge540 wrote:: I don't see any evidence of free speech being stifled, only you do.

Yes, I do – the free speech of those who erected and painted their message on the wall.

happy jack wrote:: What doesn't seem to be sinking in for you is that this is precisely the type of speech that the 1st amendment was designed to protect.

While we undoubtedly are entitled to free speech in this country, we are not entitled to free speech without any possible consequences. An example of this is flag burning. One is entitled to burn the American flag as an exercise in "free speech," but it should come as no surprise if other citizens react negatively and perhaps even violently to it. And it should also come as no surprise if the authorities do little or nothing about the actions of those citizens that respond negatively to the act of flag burning.

That said, the "private property" argument in this case might be a valid one, but I'm not sure about the legal status of a fraternity on a college campus. Are the grounds really the private property of the fraternity, or do the grounds belong to the University? My guess is that it's University property. If so, how is this any different from flag burning and the reaction to it?

Posts : 6988

Scorpion wrote:: While we undoubtedly are entitled to free speech in this country, we are not entitled to free speech without any possible consequences.

I agree wholeheartedly.
But, in this case, it was not a matter of facing consequences for one’s speech - it was a matter of one’s speech not being allowed to even exist.
As I said earlier, the ones who objected to the wall and its message could have marched, picketed, screamed, derided, displayed counter-messages, etc., etc., and they would have been fully justified in doing so. But rather than do that, they actually erased the free speech to which they objected, and that’s what is problematic.

Scorpion wrote:: That said, the "private property" argument in this case might be a valid one, but I'm not sure about the legal status of a fraternity on a college campus. Are the grounds really the private property of the fraternity, or do the grounds belong to the University? My guess is that it's University property. If so, how is this any different from flag burning and the reaction to it?

I don’t pretend to understand the legalities involved in this particular private property issue, so I don’t intend to get into a hair-splitting discussion about it. The fact remains that the message was on private property, regardless of who legally owned said property. If the legal owners were the ones who had come to remove the message from their own property, no problem. But that’s not what happened. The message was removed by those who trespassed on private property.
And again, I have no problem with anyone’s “reaction” to the wall and its alleged message. A “reaction” to someone’s free speech is one thing, but the eradication of someone’s free speech is an entirely different matter.

Posts : 6988

edge540 wrote:

happy jack wrote:: It's not happening - in fact it's not even being considered - because the speech that was squelched was unpopular with the 'progressive' crowd.

Or as you call them the idiots and pussies.

I just call ‘em as I see ‘em.

edge540 wrote:: Yes that type of speech- bigotry, hate and racisim is unpopular with that crowd and of course very popular with the conservative crowd.

That type of speech?
I believe the precise offending words were ‘Trump’ and 'Make America Great Again’.
Shudder!!!!
And what types of persons would be so traumatized by those words that they couldn’t even bear to look at them without having an emotional meltdown?
Oh, yeah – idiots and pussies.

Posts : 2141

happy jack wrote:: A “reaction” to someone’s free speech is one thing, but the eradication of someone’s free speech is an entirely different matter.

On April 25, 1976, two protesters ran into left-center field in LA and tried to set fire to an American flag after the start of the bottom of the 4th inning.

Cubs outfielder Rick Monday ran over and snatched the flag away from them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rick_Monday#American_flag_incident

The horror.... the horror .... - Page 12 MC4SgMV2dHjcymteLhMKbsw

The horror.... the horror .... - Page 12 MC4SgMV2dHjcymteLhMKbsw

Following your logic, you would have to say that Monday "eradicated" the protesters' of their right to free speech. Is that really your position?

Posts : 6988

Scorpion wrote:

happy jack wrote:: A “reaction” to someone’s free speech is one thing, but the eradication of someone’s free speech is an entirely different matter.

On April 25, 1976, two protesters ran into left-center field in LA and tried to set fire to an American flag after the start of the bottom of the 4th inning.

Cubs outfielder Rick Monday ran over and snatched the flag away from them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rick_Monday#American_flag_incident

The horror.... the horror .... - Page 12 MC4SgMV2dHjcymteLhMKbsw

Following your logic, you would have to say that Monday "eradicated" the protesters' of their right to free speech. Is that really your position?

Yes, that is my position. If Monday had broken the guy’s jaw after the flag was ablaze, that would have been a “reaction”. Preventing him from lighting the flag in the first place was the stifling of the guy’s right to free speech (although I don’t know whether that was settled law at the time of the incident).
However, this took place on private property, so the owner or owners of the property may decide what speech and actions are allowed on their premises. If the property owners had chosen to not allow that type of expression on their property and it were to be argued that Monday was acting as an agent of the property owners (and I’m not saying that he was), I think he would be found to be well within his rights to do what he did.

Posts : 1165

happy jack wrote:

edge540 wrote:

happy jack wrote:: It's not happening - in fact it's not even being considered - because the speech that was squelched was unpopular with the 'progressive' crowd.

Or as you call them the idiots and pussies.

I just call ‘em as I see ‘em.

edge540 wrote:: Yes that type of speech- bigotry, hate and racisim is unpopular with that crowd and of course very popular with the conservative crowd.

That type of speech?
I believe the precise offending words were ‘Trump’ and 'Make America Great Again’.
Shudder!!!!
And what types of persons would be so traumatized by those words that they couldn’t even bear to look at them without having an emotional meltdown?
Oh, yeah – idiots and pussies.

So in your mind anybody who is opposed to symbols of hate, bigotry and racisim is an idiot and a pussy. Got it.
Normal sane people who are not racists see the wall as a symbol of hate and bigotry.
Obviously you do not.

Posts : 2141

happy jack wrote:

Scorpion wrote:

happy jack wrote:: A “reaction” to someone’s free speech is one thing, but the eradication of someone’s free speech is an entirely different matter.

On April 25, 1976, two protesters ran into left-center field in LA and tried to set fire to an American flag after the start of the bottom of the 4th inning.

Cubs outfielder Rick Monday ran over and snatched the flag away from them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rick_Monday#American_flag_incident

The horror.... the horror .... - Page 12 MC4SgMV2dHjcymteLhMKbsw

Following your logic, you would have to say that Monday "eradicated" the protesters' of their right to free speech. Is that really your position?

Yes, that is my position. If Monday had broken the guy’s jaw after the flag was ablaze, that would have been a “reaction”. Preventing him from lighting the flag in the first place was the stifling of the guy’s right to free speech.

Yeah. Well thanks for an honest answer. Personally, I would not allow a flag burning in my presence if there was anything at all that I could do to stop it, under any circumstances. If that's considered robbing another person of their free speech rights, then so be it.

That doesn't mean that I don't think that flag burning is a form of protected speech... I just don't think that doing nothing if I had a chance to stop it would be very honorable, because it's an act that is personally repugnant to me. To me, stopping someone from burning the flag would be an exercise of my own right to free speech.

Posts : 6988

Scorpion wrote:: Yeah. Well thanks for an honest answer. Personally, I would not allow a flag burning in my presence if there was anything at all that I could do to stop it, under any circumstances. If that's considered robbing another person of their free speech rights, then so be it.

That doesn't mean that I don't think that flag burning is a form of protected speech... I just don't think that doing nothing if I had a chance to stop it would be very honorable, because it's an act that is personally repugnant to me. To me, stopping someone from burning the flag would be an exercise of my own right to free speech.

So if I understand you correctly, every person has the right to freedom of speech.
Except when you don’t like what they’re saying.
Got it.

Posts : 2141

happy jack wrote:

Scorpion wrote:: Yeah. Well thanks for an honest answer. Personally, I would not allow a flag burning in my presence if there was anything at all that I could do to stop it, under any circumstances. If that's considered robbing another person of their free speech rights, then so be it.

That doesn't mean that I don't think that flag burning is a form of protected speech... I just don't think that doing nothing if I had a chance to stop it would be very honorable, because it's an act that is personally repugnant to me. To me, stopping someone from burning the flag would be an exercise of my own right to free speech.

So if I understand you correctly, every person has the right to freedom of speech.
Except when you don’t like what they’re saying.
Got it.

Actually, what I'm saying is that I don't have to just stand idly by and let someone burn the flag because I also have the right to freedom of speech. They have the right to burn it. I have the right to attempt to stop it from being burned.

Posts : 3520

happy jack wrote:: So if I understand you correctly, every person has the right to freedom of speech.
Except when you don’t like what they’re saying.
Got it.

So you've never told your children to be quiet. Ever. Right? Because Freedom? 'Cause otherwise that applies to you too.

Posts : 6988

Scorpion wrote:

happy jack wrote:

Scorpion wrote:: Yeah. Well thanks for an honest answer. Personally, I would not allow a flag burning in my presence if there was anything at all that I could do to stop it, under any circumstances. If that's considered robbing another person of their free speech rights, then so be it.

That doesn't mean that I don't think that flag burning is a form of protected speech... I just don't think that doing nothing if I had a chance to stop it would be very honorable, because it's an act that is personally repugnant to me. To me, stopping someone from burning the flag would be an exercise of my own right to free speech.

So if I understand you correctly, every person has the right to freedom of speech.
Except when you don’t like what they’re saying.
Got it.

Actually, what I'm saying is that I don't have to just stand idly by and let someone burn the flag because I also have the right to freedom of speech. They have the right to burn it. I have the right to attempt to stop it from being burned.

If, as you claim, they have the right to burn the flag, then how can you possibly have the right to stop them from burning it? That means that you would be depriving them of a right that even you agree they are entitled to. That makes no sense.

Posts : 6988

Heretic wrote:

happy jack wrote:: So if I understand you correctly, every person has the right to freedom of speech.
Except when you don’t like what they’re saying.
Got it.

So you've never told your children to be quiet. Ever. Right? Because Freedom? 'Cause otherwise that applies to you too.

A post like this one makes the repeal of the 1st amendment somewhat palatable.

Posts : 6988

edge540 wrote:: So in your mind anybody who is opposed to symbols of hate, bigotry and racisim is an idiot and a pussy.

No, in my mind, anyone who needs a fainting couch and who collapses into tears when they see the name of a presidential candidate and his campaign slogan printed on a wall is an idiot and a pussy.
Hope that clears things up.

Posts : 1165

happy jack wrote:

edge540 wrote:: So in your mind anybody who is opposed to symbols of hate, bigotry and racisim is an idiot and a pussy.

No, in my mind, anyone who needs a fainting couch and who collapses into tears when they see the name of a presidential candidate and his campaign slogan printed on a wall is an idiot and a pussy.
Hope that clears things up.

Yes it does, you confirm my statement:
Normal sane people who are not racists see the wall as a symbol of hate and bigotry.
Obviously you do not.
Thank you.

Donald Trump Enables Racism
Trump is giving racists carte blanche.
http://reason.com/archives/2016/03/16/donald-trump-enables-racism

Posts : 6988

edge540 wrote:: Normal sane people who are not racists see the wall as a symbol of hate and bigotry.
Obviously you do not.

You are correct - I do not.
What I see is a presidential candidate's name and his quite benign slogan written on a makeshift wall on private property, a wall traditionally used for a game of capture the flag.
Do you have a problem with America being great?

Posts : 1165

happy jack wrote:

edge540 wrote:: Normal sane people who are not racists see the wall as a symbol of hate and bigotry.
Obviously you do not.

You are correct - I do not.
What I see is a presidential candidate's name and his quite benign slogan written on a makeshift wall on private property, a wall traditionally used for a game of capture the flag.
Do you have a problem with America being great?

There is a reason the candidate is supported by bigots, racists and white supremacists, are you aware of that? Do you know why?
Are you aware that there is a "Stop Trump Movement" led by republicans?
If so have any idea as to why it exists?
Do you think it has anything to do with the fact that Donald Trump is a virulent rascist asshole?

Posts : 6988

edge540 wrote:

happy jack wrote:

edge540 wrote:: Normal sane people who are not racists see the wall as a symbol of hate and bigotry.
Obviously you do not.

You are correct - I do not.
What I see is a presidential candidate's name and his quite benign slogan written on a makeshift wall on private property, a wall traditionally used for a game of capture the flag.
Do you have a problem with America being great?

There is a reason the candidate is supported by bigots, racists and white supremacists, are you aware of that? Do you know why?
Are you aware that there is a "Stop Trump Movement" led by republicans?
If so have any idea as to why it exists?

I am aware of all that.
And not a single bit of it changes reality, the reality being that a presidential candidate's name and his quite benign slogan were written on a makeshift wall on private property, a wall traditionally used for a game of capture the flag.
Nothing more, no matter how much shit you wish to make up.

Posts : 1165

happy jack wrote:

edge540 wrote:

happy jack wrote:

edge540 wrote:: Normal sane people who are not racists see the wall as a symbol of hate and bigotry.
Obviously you do not.

You are correct - I do not.
What I see is a presidential candidate's name and his quite benign slogan written on a makeshift wall on private property, a wall traditionally used for a game of capture the flag.
Do you have a problem with America being great?

There is a reason the candidate is supported by bigots, racists and white supremacists, are you aware of that? Do you know why?
Are you aware that there is a "Stop Trump Movement" led by republicans?
If so have any idea as to why it exists?

I am aware of all that.
And not a single bit of it changes reality, the reality being that a presidential candidate's name and his quite benign slogan were written on a makeshift wall on private property, a wall traditionally used for a game of capture the flag.
Nothing more, no matter how much shit you wish to make up.

Yeah well the reality is that after last night the stop Trump movement is a spectacular failure for the GOP. lol!

How embarrassing!
Your nominee is going to be an ignorant, racist buffoon.