SCOTUS will end 2nd Amendment debate today

DaMayor · 06-26-2008, 01:25 PM

These types are a dime a dozen. Its easier to use a crutch as opposed to presenting a solid argument.....seems to be the trend these days, anyway.

You're familiar with S.C., no? The land of repressed and victimized.

clemson357 · 06-26-2008, 01:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaMayor

These types are a dime a dozen. Its easier to use a crutch as opposed to presenting a solid argument.....seems to be the trend these days, anyway.

You're familiar with S.C., no? The land of repressed and victimized.

Why do you say that?

I'd say claiming to be/wanting to be labeled repressed and victimized has more to do with political persuasion than anything else.

**dg806** · 06-26-2008, 01:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by clemson357

Seriously, there is something seriously wrong with a person who cannot form a single thought without whining about inequalities of race or wealth.

Who else will they balme their own problems on?

**dg806** · 06-26-2008, 01:30 PM

God I wish Charleton Heston had lived to see this day!! He would had been one very happy guy.

**dg806** · 06-26-2008, 01:33 PM

Very scary that the four liberls voted against it. They should be impeached immediately.

DaMayor · 06-26-2008, 01:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by clemson357

Seriously, there is something seriously wrong with a person who cannot form a single thought without whining about inequalities of race or wealth.

I was responding to this statement.

Quote:

I'd say claiming to be/wanting to be labeled repressed and victimized has more to do with political persuasion than anything else.

Yes.

clemson357 · 06-26-2008, 01:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaMayor

Yes.

Word.

clemson357 · 06-26-2008, 01:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dg806

Very scary that the four liberls voted against it. They should be impeached immediately.

Its scary to know that SCOTUS, who is supposed to protect the rights of the minority against the will of the majority, is essentially completely in line with the partisan-political bullshit that is going on today.

KelJu · 06-26-2008, 02:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by clemson357

Seriously, there is something seriously wrong with a person who cannot form a single thought without whining about inequalities of race or wealth.

Kind of like someone who whines about people who whine about inequalities of race and wealth.

DOMS · 06-26-2008, 02:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KelJu

Kind of like someone who whines about people who whine about inequalities of race and wealth.

It's always the right time to shit on morons.

clemson357 · 06-26-2008, 02:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KelJu

Kind of like someone who whines about people who whine about inequalities of race and wealth.

What about someone who whines about people who whine about people who whine about inequalities of race and wealth?

DaMayor · 06-26-2008, 03:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by clemson357

What about someone who whines about people who whine about people who whine about inequalities of race and wealth?

Oh stop whining.

KelJu · 06-26-2008, 05:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by clemson357

What about someone who whines about people who whine about people who whine about inequalities of race and wealth?

Hahaha, I was going to post that next, but got held up with a customer.

danzik17 · 06-26-2008, 05:20 PM

So does this mean that there is no more grey area about home defense? If someone breaks in, is shooting their ass now Constitutionally protected?

KelJu · 06-26-2008, 05:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by clemson357

What about someone who whines about people who whine about people who whine about inequalities of race and wealth?

Also, anybody who whines about racial inequality in this country is a fucking loser that will never be successful in the first place. Let them whine. Don't join them.

**Dale Mabry** · 06-26-2008, 05:36 PM

Good ruling.

FishOrCutBait · 06-26-2008, 06:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by clemson357

You ask me to provide "evidence" that it is limiting in the same post as acknowledging that it requires "varied viewpoints?"

Stick with me here because this is a difficult concept: the whole point of the first amendment is FREEDOM OF SPEECH.

It isn't about freedom of speech so long as you have "varied viewpoints." It isn't about freedom of speech so long as you say something we want to hear. It isn't about freedom of speech so long as we like what you have to say. It is about the freedom to say what I want to say without your bullshit restrictions.

Is this really a point that you want to argue?!? That legislating as to the content of certain speech has nothing to do with free speech? Why don't we just say that the freedom from unreasonable searches in seizures in the fourth amendment applies only so long as you haven't comitted a crime, and to insure that you haven't comitted a crime of course we have to search you without probable cause? Why don't we just say that freedom from self-incrimination under the fifth amendment only applies so long as you haven't been charged with a crime? Its facially fucking ridiculous.

Your typical liberal-whining bullshit about wealth or race or some other idealized victim status is completely meritless. The television media is extremely liberally biased, yet excluded from the fairness doctrine. I wonder why. I guess "varied viewpoints" are only a worthy endeavor if the bias swings against the cry babies.

fucking crushed.

clemson357 · 06-26-2008, 08:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KelJu

Also, anybody who whines about racial inequality in this country is a fucking loser that will never be successful in the first place. Let them whine. Don't join them.

We can agree on that.

clemson357 · 06-26-2008, 08:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FishOrCutBait

fucking crushed.

I was hoping someone would appreciate that.

DOMS · 06-26-2008, 08:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by clemson357

I was hoping someone would appreciate that.

What's really funny is that bit of legal muzzling was put forth by Republicans, he's have denounced it as censorship.

He is the most close-minded person that I've encountered.

clemson357 · 06-26-2008, 08:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DOMS

What's really funny is that bit of legal muzzling was put forth by Republicans, he's have denounced it as censorship.

Not just any censorship, but racist oppressive censorship by the wealthy benefiting from corporate welfare and inventing the AIDS virus to increase global warming.

DOMS · 06-26-2008, 08:47 PM

Damn...

kbm8795 · 06-26-2008, 09:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by clemson357

You ask me to provide "evidence" that it is limiting in the same post as acknowledging that it requires "varied viewpoints?"

Stick with me here because this is a difficult concept: the whole point of the first amendment is FREEDOM OF SPEECH.

It isn't about freedom of speech so long as you have "varied viewpoints." It isn't about freedom of speech so long as you say something we want to hear. It isn't about freedom of speech so long as we like what you have to say. It is about the freedom to say what I want to say without your bullshit restrictions.

Is this really a point that you want to argue?!? That legislating as to the content of certain speech has nothing to do with free speech? Why don't we just say that the freedom from unreasonable searches in seizures in the fourth amendment applies only so long as you haven't comitted a crime, and to insure that you haven't comitted a crime of course we have to search you without probable cause? Why don't we just say that freedom from self-incrimination under the fifth amendment only applies so long as you haven't been charged with a crime? Its facially fucking ridiculous.

Your typical liberal-whining bullshit about wealth or race or some other idealized victim status is completely meritless. The television media is extremely liberally biased, yet excluded from the fairness doctrine. I wonder why. I guess "varied viewpoints" are only a worthy endeavor if the bias swings against the cry babies.

You know, your first problem is an amazing inability to be confident enough in your beliefs that you can engage in a discussion without resorting to third grade level namecalling or bullshit. It isn't about freedom of speech when conservatives claim that the only parties allowed access to the PUBLIC airwaves are those who OWN the stations.

You still have failed to provide the evidence that the Fairness Doctrine significantly restricted freedom of speech on the airwaves. You only claim there were restrictions on such speech, and yet provide nothing other than use your tired old "the liberals, the liberals" bullshit to repeat a memorized mantra. You haven't given me any more indication that you understand bias in the media than DOMS had, and he failed a very simple test in which he provided the example.

"Varied viewpoints" is the idea that there are 300 million Americans who all have different experiences and different stories - and they are not represented significantly at all by a cabal of right wing ideologues monopolizing the media. Perhaps you should review the initial reasons Reagan wanted the Fairness Doctrine removed, and then compare those to the media we have today, explaining along the way how the conservative approach has managed to raise the public's confidence in the press.

kbm8795 · 06-26-2008, 09:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DOMS

What's really funny is that bit of legal muzzling was put forth by Republicans, he's have denounced it as censorship.

He is the most close-minded person that I've encountered.

And you are one of the most least informed people on your country, its history, its media, and its culture that I've ever encountered. Of course, I seem to remember a few stiff fines levied against the media by the conservative-controlled FCC in the name of right-wing censorship. . .and plenty of demands for censorship pushed by right-wing groups against any viewpoint they deem indecent - which would be any viewpoint other than their own.

kbm8795 · 06-26-2008, 09:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by clemson357

We can agree on that.

Yeah..so when are the "angry white males" going to stop whining?

kbm8795 · 06-26-2008, 09:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FishOrCutBait

fucking crushed.

He still hasn't shown us any instances in which content of speech was restricted.

Witchblade · 06-26-2008, 09:24 PM

I think kbm is putting up a fair fight.

Haven't read anything from him in other threads though.

DOMS · 06-26-2008, 09:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kbm8795

And you are one of the most least informed people on your country, its history, its media, and its culture that I've ever encountered. Of course, I seem to remember a few stiff fines levied against the media by the conservative-controlled FCC in the name of right-wing censorship. . .and plenty of demands for censorship pushed by right-wing groups against any viewpoint they deem indecent - which would be any viewpoint other than their own.

Least? Hahahahaha You don't like anybody's ideas other that your own warped imaginings, so you have to declare that I know less about anything than anyone else. Truly pathetic.

Even better, you claim, rightfully so, that the right does its bit to censor, so that you think that makes it okay for your side to do the same. Hell, you don't just think that it's "okay", you think it's a blessing for society.

I take it back, pathetic doesn't begin to describe you.

cadnkides · 06-26-2008, 09:25 PM

if Obama gets into office you can kiss this ruling goodby

DOMS · 06-26-2008, 09:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Witchblade

I think kbm is putting up a fair fight.

Haven't read anything from him in other threads though.

Go back and read his stuff, it's amusing.

The US government is trying to tell people what they can, and cannot, say. It's not about decency either. Having laws that prevent someone from saying fuck, inciting a riot, or defamation is one thing. Anything beyond that is censorship.

06-26-2008, 01:30 PM	#34
dg806 Guardian of The Homeland Super Moderator Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Charlotte NC Posts: 18,197	God I wish Charleton Heston had lived to see this day!! He would had been one very happy guy. 1-Andro Rx Pro-hormone

06-26-2008, 01:33 PM	#35
dg806 Guardian of The Homeland Super Moderator Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Charlotte NC Posts: 18,197	Very scary that the four liberls voted against it. They should be impeached immediately. 1-Andro Rx Pro-hormone

06-26-2008, 05:20 PM	#44
danzik17 Gender: MALE Elite Member Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Connecticut Posts: 3,073	So does this mean that there is no more grey area about home defense? If someone breaks in, is shooting their ass now Constitutionally protected? Ron Paul 2012 Journal: danzik17's Log - 4-6 Week Strength/Bulk Journal: Sub 10% by April <old>

06-26-2008, 05:36 PM	#46
Dale Mabry Moderator Moderator Join Date: May 2003 Location: Elsewhere Posts: 14,335 Photos: 10	Good ruling. If sense were common, everyone would have it. 4/2007-Current 75th Ranked most popular image 1 spot behind Prince's bulge...

06-26-2008, 09:24 PM	#57
Witchblade Succinct Elite Member Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Holland Posts: 4,474 Photos: 2	I think kbm is putting up a fair fight. Haven't read anything from him in other threads though. My Linkdump [LSFW] IM Official FAQ [WORK IN PROGRESS]

06-26-2008, 01:25 PM	#31
DaMayor On a Perpetual Bulk Elite Member Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: ... Posts: 6,145	These types are a dime a dozen. Its easier to use a crutch as opposed to presenting a solid argument.....seems to be the trend these days, anyway. You're familiar with S.C., no? The land of repressed and victimized.

06-26-2008, 08:47 PM	#52
DOMS Metrosexual Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 22,092 Photos: 1	Damn...

06-26-2008, 09:25 PM	#59
cadnkides Registered User Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: usa Posts: 77	if Obama gets into office you can kiss this ruling goodby

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode