COVID-19 RESOURCES
LIT CAMS (200 Free Tokens)ADULT TOYSVOD MOVIES

Roy Moore

Those pesky democrats are getting better at the recount racket.

Who are the Russians voting for in this one?
 
about_average said:
I'm not aware of any laws, with extremely limited exceptions, passed by congress abridging the right of free speech.
Click to expand...

And your point of pulling "laws" and "congress[sic] abridging" out of nowhere to mix in your mess is, when neither has anything to do with many people today supporting the right to vote (as you pointed out) conditioned upon the views of the person running for election, and so many people today basing their support of free speech more on what is said rather than the mere right itself?

Why do you condition your support of everyone's right to vote on whom they vote for? And why do you condition your support of everyone's natural right to speak freely on what they say? Why are you so afraid that you want government to totally rule over the market, the vote and speech? Why are you so obviously frightened of freedom so much?
 
Boxlicker101 said:
Not only logical but necessary. Fortunately, that is almost certain to never happen. The only way it could happen would be for SJW's to dominate Congress and most state legislatures and require all white people to become slaves, as some kind of affirmative action. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Yeah, slavery is great!
Unless you're the slave.

But think of all the family unity! :rolleyes:
 
BobBalouski said:
And your point of pulling "laws" and "congress[sic] abridging" out of nowhere to mix in your mess is, when neither has anything to do with many people today supporting the right to vote (as you pointed out) conditioned upon the views of the person running for election, and so many people today basing their support of free speech more on what is said rather than the mere right itself?
Click to expand...
He has every right to say as much stupid shit as he wants, and he does, like it should be the law that women can't vote.

Just as a woman has a right to not give her life to protect the right for someone to vote for a person who says she shouldn't be allowed to vote. And I'd certainly not fault her for not giving her life to get someone elected who wants to remove her rights.
 
phrodeau said:
There might be a museum that wants them.
Click to expand...
The Alabama Supreme Court overturned that ballot-preservation order. Local election officials are free to destroy any embarrassing evidence, but they'd better hop to it. Watch for rising smoke (and they ain't electing a new Pope.)
 
Hypoxia said:
The Alabama Supreme Court overturned that ballot-preservation order. Local election officials are free to destroy any embarrassing evidence, but they'd better hop to it. Watch for rising smoke (and they ain't electing a new Pope.)
Click to expand...
Well now, they said they might hear the case later in December I think, or maybe January. LOL
 
BobBalouski said:
And your point of pulling "laws" and "congress[sic] abridging" out of nowhere to mix in your mess is, when neither has anything to do with many people today supporting the right to vote (as you pointed out) conditioned upon the views of the person running for election, and so many people today basing their support of free speech more on what is said rather than the mere right itself?

Why do you condition your support of everyone's right to vote on whom they vote for? And why do you condition your support of everyone's natural right to speak freely on what they say? Why are you so afraid that you want government to totally rule over the market, the vote and speech? Why are you so obviously frightened of freedom so much?
Click to expand...

How utterly hysterical. I think you don't have any idea what the "right to free speech" is about.
 
IhdzYN8.jpg
 
about_average said:
He has every right to say as much stupid shit as he wants, and he does, like it should be the law that women can't vote.
Click to expand...

And you wouldn't defend with your life his right to say as much stupid shit as he wants. Yes, you've already established that numerous times. Your son in the Navy feel the same? That although every American taxpayer pays his way, he, like his father, will only defend with his life the rights of those he agrees with?
 
BobBalouski said:
And you wouldn't defend with your life his right to say as much stupid shit as he wants. Yes, you've already established that numerous times. Your son in the Navy feel the same? That although every American taxpayer pays his way, he, like his father, will only defend with his life the rights of those he agrees with?
Click to expand...
Do you know for a fact she swore an oath to uphold the constitution?

When are you going to give your wannabe life to defend the lives of the millions of babies you claim are killed each year?.
 
richard_daily said:
Basically, you want welfare.
Click to expand...

You forgot, "in my opinion." And again, the actual point is defending with your life everyone's natural right to say whatever they wish, not their actual speech. In other words, would you give your life to guarantee a Senator's free speech right to champion abolishing every woman's right to vote, or to relegalize slavery in America?
 
Looks like Travis Smiley was just suspended by PBS for 'Multiple, Credible Allegations' of Inappropriate Behavior.:rolleyes:
 
about_average said:
Do you know for a fact she swore an oath to uphold the constitution?
Click to expand...
The oath of enlistment (or office for commissioned officers) is not an optional piece. DD Form 4 with the oath is part of the enlistment paperwork. It should be signed by the commissioned officer that adminstered the oath along with the person taking the oath. Barring something like outright forgery, she swore the oath if she joined the US Navy.
 
Rightguide said:
Looks like Travis Smiley was just suspended by PBS for 'Multiple, Credible Allegations' of Inappropriate Behavior.:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Again, the difference is liberals hold them accountable for their actions while your precious republicans try and elect them to the government.

Like Moore, you've lost but won't admit it. :D
 
zipman said:
Again, the difference is liberals hold them accountable for their actions while your precious republicans try and elect them to the government.

Like Moore, you've lost but won't admit it. :D
Click to expand...

I haven't lost anything. I've never harassed a woman or sexually harassed a woman in my life. What I see are men losing their reputations, livelihoods, and careers, on accusations, sometimes anonymous, without being able to confront their accusers, or present a defense. I see men being prosecuted to destruction in the court of public opinion. Is this what you want, are we going to go down this road as a country? No evidence, no presumption of innocence? I don't wish this on any man regardless of politics.
 
Rightguide said:
I haven't lost anything. I've never harassed a woman or sexually harassed a woman in my life. What I see are men losing their reputations, livelihoods, and careers, on accusations, sometimes anonymous, without being able to confront their accusers, or present a defense. I see men being prosecuted to destruction in the court of public opinion. Is this what you want, are we going to go down this road as a country? No evidence, no presumption of innocence? I don't wish this on any man regardless of politics.
Click to expand...

LOL< talk about moving the goal posts. I never accused you of sexual harassment so your denial is meaningless.

You were talking about how there were more democrats doing it than republicans and I articulated the difference being that democrats were holding those people responsible for their actions as opposed to republicans who try and elect them to public office.

One group is clearly against it and the other doesn't see it as being a problem. You're on the wrong side.
 
Rightguide said:
I haven't lost anything. I've never harassed a woman or sexually harassed a woman in my life. What I see are men losing their reputations, livelihoods, and careers, on accusations, sometimes anonymous, without being able to confront their accusers, or present a defense. I see men being prosecuted to destruction in the court of public opinion. Is this what you want, are we going to go down this road as a country? No evidence, no presumption of innocence? I don't wish this on any man regardless of politics.
Click to expand...

Does this go for all of the Democrats you've jumped all over regarding their sexual assault accusers or does that only go for the G0P molesters?
 
zipman said:
LOL< talk about moving the goal posts. I never accused you of sexual harassment so your denial is meaningless.

You were talking about how there were more democrats doing it than republicans and I articulated the difference being that democrats were holding those people responsible for their actions as opposed to republicans who try and elect them to public office.

One group is clearly against it and the other doesn't see it as being a problem. You're on the wrong side.
Click to expand...

I was simply pointing out how the left eats their own. Yes there are more Democrats than Republicans and you can snare a lot more Republicans if you simply "move the goalposts" to include looking at a woman's boobs, ass, or legs, or commenting on such as they are now trying to do at Harvard. We can turn that into a social violation of political correctness and condemn all men.

The question to you is, do you want to go down this road where a simple accusations and perception destroys a man's life?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

P
Connecticut is really fucking good
Replies
3
Views
157
Saint_Ann
Saint_Ann
S
How do you know?
Replies
6
Views
202
Britva415
Britva415
F
Can they really be that innocent?
Replies
9
Views
467
juttjaw
juttjaw
J
Prayer for Peace
Replies
1
Views
43
Brains_N_Boobs
Brains_N_Boobs
ElizabethLolita
UNWANTED PEOPLE
Replies
23
Views
2K
Zeb_Carter
Zeb_Carter
Back
Top