Results 1 to 15 of 80

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Thunder Road
    Posts
    1,104
    Thanks (Given)
    0
    Thanks (Received)
    0
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    0
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gunny View Post
    Define "legitimate dissent." I think she goes above and beyond the intent.
    Like I said... I just don't think she's all that bright. I also think that the right gives her far more credence than anyone I know who is a Dem. I don't think she goes beyond legitimate dissent. The whole point of the First Amendment is to protect speech we don't like because the nice stuff doesn't need protection.

    Why should people incarcerated for participating in actions against this nation be allowed to hide behind the very laws they wish to destroy?
    Don't you first have to prove they wanted to destroy the law before you draw that conclusion? It's not how we do things here. Or have we become a banana republic? I'd hate to think that was the case.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    The Republic of Texas
    Posts
    48,139
    Thanks (Given)
    34530
    Thanks (Received)
    26620
    Likes (Given)
    2486
    Likes (Received)
    10108
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    12
    Mentioned
    373 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    21475529

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jillian View Post
    Like I said... I just don't think she's all that bright. I also think that the right gives her far more credence than anyone I know who is a Dem. I don't think she goes beyond legitimate dissent. The whole point of the First Amendment is to protect speech we don't like because the nice stuff doesn't need protection.

    I don't see the right giving her all that much credence. This is a message board, not a cable news channel, nor international media outlet.

    Just depends on how you interpret the right to free speech. IMO, the intent is that everyone has a right to voice their dissent in a proper forum. Obviously, I am in the minority with that opinion, but I believe it to be the correct one nonetheless.




    Don't you first have to prove they wanted to destroy the law before you draw that conclusion? It's not how we do things here. Or have we become a banana republic? I'd hate to think that was the case.
    When you fly planes into buildings, take up arms against the US, or conspire to bring about our downfall in any way, you are attempting to destroy the ideals that this Nation is founded on, to include its laws.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Debate Policy - Political Forums