When are we going to get serious about the criminally insane?

Even if that is true, it is not the main point. He should have some law enforcement consequences for advocating violence against the objects of his hate.

It is becoming very obvious that we cannot have a stable and civil society otherwise.

Why do you hate free speech???

Oh....(D) is why. :D
 
More whatabout bullshit. Is Maxine openly advocating to bomb journalists who disagree with her political orientation?

No, she's openly advocating nationalization of our economy damn near ending all individual rights as we understand them in the name of racial, gender and economic equity.......far far worse.

She's a black female Stalin and you dumb fucks can't see past her skin color or cunt.

And why do you make excuses for those who openly advocate for violence against those "Ds"?

Oh...Extremist Deplorable.

I don't I advocate free speech.....unlike you.

I'm not the extremist, the anti-free speech left is.

dwf2kvp.jpg
main-qimg-e6ba5f1235ea789ef3095731caf8c38c-c
 
Last edited:
She is talking about open harassment of public officials and it picked u by all of the major news outlets. busybody has six people who don't have him on ignore who mostly laugh off his antics. You are trying to turn a pimple into a cancer while ignoring the malignant tumor that no one can ignore.
 
Hey BotBoy and the other guy whose user name is based on a racist slur:

You both may have forgotten that we are free to advocate for any type of economic system that we choose. We are not "free" to advocate for deadly physical violence against those who disagree with our views on economic policy and other political decisions. Those decisions are designed to be made through the ballot box in this country.

I hope at some point both of you also attract the attention of law enforcement for conflating free speech with the advocacy for deadly physical violence. It's excuses from idiots like you who make it possible for BB to get away with this shit.
 
Hey BotBoy and the other guy whose user name is based on a racist slur:

You both may have forgotten that we are free to advocate for any type of economic system that we choose. We are not "free" to advocate for deadly physical violence against those who disagree with our views on economic policy and other political decisions. Those decisions are designed to be made through the ballot box in this country.

I hope at some point both of you also attract the attention of law enforcement for conflating free speech with the advocacy for deadly physical violence. It's excuses from idiots like you who make it possible for BB to get away with this shit.

you "people" are mindless
 
Hey BotBoy and the other guy whose user name is based on a racist slur:

You both may have forgotten that we are free to advocate for any type of economic system that we choose.

Not at all, you're the anti-free speech person here.

We are not "free" to advocate for deadly physical violence against those who disagree with our views on economic policy and other political decisions.

Yes, we are.

I hope at some point both of you also attract the attention of law enforcement for conflating free speech with the advocacy for deadly physical violence.

They have my info, DNA, talked to my 3rd grade teachers and have it all on record. They know where I live and to bring 2 SWAT teams + air support if they ever wanted to come and get me.


It's excuses from idiots like you who make it possible for BB to get away with this shit.

FREE SPEECH BAD!!!!

Yea I got it the first dozen times. :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
Really, SpeareChucker and Botany Boy, it is up to you about whether you are going to continue to make excuses for a Lit poster who has repeatedly advocated for deadly physical violence against people who disagree with his political views.

If that is the kind of society you want, you should go on record as supporting that view.
 
Even if that is true, it is not the main point. He should have some law enforcement consequences for advocating violence against the objects of his hate.

It is becoming very obvious that we cannot have a stable and civil society otherwise.

Yes Hillary made clear we cannot have a civil society unless your ilk are in charge.

The difference is that you can count on the right using the ballot bx to settle our differences and the left for completely ignoring Authority every time they do not wield it. You can try if you'd like to justify the long history of those with your leftist ideology engaging in violence but you cannot deny that that it is so.

This nation is supposed to be a nation of laws not a nation of men and those laws favor the ideology of the right for a reason because it was founded by those who were not leftist. That's why the left is don't like the actual law and try to contort it to mean whatever it is they like it to mean instead of what it actually says.
 
So, we're free to advocate for non-violent harassment because we know that will never lead to violence, so hunt them down at the movies, harass their families in restaurants, terrify their families in their homes and scream them off campus with the help of AntiFa...

How many of those activities has busybody engaged in?
 
Really, SpeareChucker and Botany Boy, it is up to you about whether you are going to continue to make excuses for a Lit poster who has repeatedly advocated for deadly physical violence against people who disagree with his political views.

If that is the kind of society you want, you should go on record as supporting that view.

You think I have a problem with free speech?

LMFAO!!!!!

I'm on record supporting free speech...that's the kind of society I want.
 
^^^Armed pot-head with a big ax to grind. Thinks free speech includes advocating for deadly physical violence.

Oh so you can't back up your bullshit.


You can't incite violence with your speech, that's not the same as advocating.

You can advocate violence all day long.

I do it regularly, 100% legal.

Thanks 1A and our right wing Constitution.
 
Hey, Laurel bans them and then they just change their usernames. What more can be done?:confused:
 
So, we're free to advocate for non-violent harassment because we know that will never lead to violence, so hunt them down at the movies, harass their families in restaurants, terrify their families in their homes and scream them off campus with the help of AntiFa...

How many of those activities has busybody engaged in?

BB has gone past advocating for "non-violent harassment". The others you cite will have to deal with whether they crossed a the line of effectively calling for assassination, but BB has openly and in print called for deadly physical violence.
 
Yes Hillary made clear we cannot have a civil society unless your ilk are in charge.

The difference is that you can count on the right using the ballot bx to settle our differences and the left for completely ignoring Authority every time they do not wield it. You can try if you'd like to justify the long history of those with your leftist ideology engaging in violence but you cannot deny that that it is so.

This nation is supposed to be a nation of laws not a nation of men and those laws favor the ideology of the right for a reason because it was founded by those who were not leftist. That's why the left is don't like the actual law and try to contort it to mean whatever it is they like it to mean instead of what it actually says.

This is not a matter of who is in charge. This is a matter of basic ground rules no matter who happens to be in charge.

Do you support the use of deadly physical violence to silence those who have a different political perspective? If so, feel free to add your name to the list of those who are identifying themselves in this thread.
 
This nation is supposed to be a nation of laws not a nation of men and those laws favor the ideology of the right for a reason because it was founded by those who were not leftist.

That just doesn't seem to register to our leftist folks out there.

Must generally not do very well in history that lot.

That's why the left is don't like the actual law and try to contort it to mean whatever it is they like it to mean instead of what it actually says.

Dictionaries be DAMNED!!!!

God they hate dictionaries, and encyclopedia Britannica? Doesn't know SHIT!
 
BB has gone past advocating for "non-violent harassment". The others you cite will have to deal with whether they crossed a the line of effectively calling for assassination, but BB has openly and in print called for deadly physical violence.

So?

Nothing illegal about that.
 
Hey, Laurel bans them and then they just change their usernames. What more can be done?:confused:

That is not the point I am making. This thread is about whether a definition of the "criminally insane" is relevant to curbing acts of mass violence in our society. My point is that threats and advocacy for deadly physical violence are more relevant than trying to identify the "insane".

Laurel does what she can. I did criticize her for acting slowly on BB's last gross violation of Lit guidelines, but that is not the main point I am making that this time.

Right now, I am talking about whether a democratic society can be sustained if free speech includes the open advocacy for deadly physical violence against those who we disagree with or hate within our country.
 
OK, your view is clear. Thanks for weighing in on the question I posed.

I didn't ask you if my view was clear.


You have beef....you want to end free speech....I'm asking you why.

Can you not explain your position?
 
Back
Top