ignorant whores.....

Congress shall make no law.... abridging the freedom of speech.

Hmmm... And yet you wish to limit.. One might even 'abridge' (thoguh truly that would be rather lighter) free speech?

 

they at least need to know what hitler really did....


they need to understand....


god why are people so defiecient of empathy, I mean hell I get where they are coming from...


BUT IT'S FUCKING WRONG!!!

 

I'm mainly just being an asshole for the sake of being an asshole, I understand completely where you're coming from. But really, what makes you any more right than them? They're all just opinions, no opinion is correct... Apart from mine...

 

congress has made plenty of laws abridging the freedom of speech, you may not purger yourself in open court, libel is illegal, there are all sorts of things



as long as something doesn't infringe upon life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness of another it is free speach, if it does however, it is illegal

 

You'll understand someday.

 

you have no right to that arrogance, you do not even understand clearly the true meaning of the phrase free speach....


I am more right then them because I have history, science and all sorts of empirical lovelies backing me up, they simply have blanket ignorance....

 

Yes thewy have, blatantly unconstitutionally, but that's not really the point now is it?

 

Jesus fucking christ, it's speech. Freedom is freedom, limited freedom is no longer freedom, it's all or nothing.

 

Too fucking right.


To that guy with the eye in his sig, stop being a fuck-hole to AnOriginalName, he was saying you were right and joking, you ****-faced tool.

 

I don't do I, free speech is about free speech... FOR EVERYONE, no matter what they belive in, free speech is not just for you fucking left-wing hippies to 'fight the power'!

I think that you're covered by a 'blanket of ignorance' too if you can't accept the fact that EVERYONE has (or at least should have) the right to complete free SPEECH. Ofcourse, what you do and say are two different things...

 

it's not unconstitutional, the thing we have done "lately" (on a historical timescale) is term limits on a president, that changed the scope of the document....




oh wait..... I'm just going over the heads of the room now....


fuck, read a book or two about how constitutional law works, it is different from what gun nuts and spEEch nuts choose to believe, it is actually a very restrictive document, ninth ammentment nt conscidered, which of course in reality it isn't.....

 

Yeah! What he said!

 

Why the fuck do you care so much about what OriginalName thinks, eh? It's all opinions, I'm sure he thinks you're a ****, but he doesn't argue that.... yet.

 

Brandon, John Lennon was shot because Mark David Chapman believed too much in the story "Catcher in the Rye" and felt that the entire aldult world was full of phoneys and hypocrits.. John Lennon sung about "no possesions" and "no money" in Imagine, yet he had how many houses?

Mark David Chapman grew up during Beatlemania in the Southern States, and was a big fan--he also recorded his own covers of their songs [and i must say, he had a wonderful voice back then]--i can't remember when he stopped becoming their fans, but it was n't because of the "bigger than Jesus" remark..He got heavy into drugs, and foung God and spirituality in Jesus. He worked at summer camps where he bonded real well with the children, because he longed to be a child himself [Catcher in the Rye]--he later moved to Hawaii, where he battled depression--well he battled depression for a loooong time, but yeah--he was married, but then had some problems and was divorced--battled depression some more, adnd everyone he worked with thought he was doing better too [cause thats how he acted]--he bought a gun and flew to the continental US--called his ex-wife--then went to New York, saw the sights, got Johns autograph earlier in the day--then later that night, he shot John in the back...

i bet you probobly knew some of that, but i don't see one bit how John Lennon relates to neo-Nazis, rascism and free speech?

 

How pretentious to assume such, especially for one who could not properly spell such a word as speech. and I would say the ninth is a rather important one, and considering that the founding fathers put it in I would say it is safe to believe they deemed it such as well. To truly understand constitutional law, one would be best to learn more of the ideals and principles of those who actually wrote it, rather than those who wish to corrupt it. It was restrictive only so much as in attempting to restrict the government, so as to protect our freedoms, and not just those enumerated by it. Fucking learn to think for yourself.

 

oh wow, you are one of the people with the spelling rebar up their ass too.....



idealized images exist of the document for a reason, read the document and what it says, sans ammendmants, tell me these were good men,


read the document then with ammendments, figure out how the document actually works and then be profoundly knocked on your ass by how painfully stupid you have been



and my god, you care about spelling and try to raise it as a point, that is fucking pathetic




read a god forsaken book, learn the truth then come sobbing back to me about how open and free the document is


gun laws are the same as spEEch laws

just more cold steel and less subtle manipulations of society....

 

I don't really give a shit about the laws, I'm arguing about morales here and the real meaning of 'Free Speech', not what it is in reality.

(BTW, I know that your previous post wasn't directed at me)

 

Well for one who claims to be so much more intelligent you would think spelling would be a simple matter no? You really are blind to all but that you wish to see aren't you? Anyway, it has become rather apparent my last post "went over your head".. Funny how you go off about a side comment, ignoring the actual content of my post, but then I suppose that makes it easier for you eh?

 

'WHY CAN'T WE BE FRIENDS........ WHY CAN'T WE BEEE FRIENDS......."

 

Did you just say that?

If that were the case, then couldn't the government decide EVERYTHING that parents teach their children? Couldn't our overtly-Christian government then take children away from atheist parents? You're asking for it if you try to create laws like you mention.

I DEFINITELY don't agree with what Chuck just said, but it certainly is sad that these girls have been so brainwashed. However, it isn't illegal to feel the way they do, so I'm not about to try to prevent them. It's sick, really, but they're allowed to do it, and I support their right to do it.