DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Everything Else... Today's contribution from the 'religion of peace'

It doesn't appear that you understand what the word 'hypocrisy' means.

Hypocrisy is a noun that describes the practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one's own behavior does not conform.

In order for me to be a hypocrite on the issue of free speech, I would've had to have shown a history of believing that certain speech should be banned or restricted.

Can you provide such an example?

You've been asked to do so several times, and were unable to.

How would you expect others to understand your point, when you don't even appear capable of explaining or illustrating it yourself?

Well thats one. How bout you other two?

*crickets*

I don't remember calling Muslims any derogatory names.

And nobody on this board has called any groups and derogatory names.

Are you making things up again? Does PDR need to call you out again?

*Crickets*

This is generally a tongue-in-cheek method of showing that you made a valid point so well-explained that your opposition can't refute it.

You've yet to make a coherent point in this thread, let alone a valid one, or one beyond reproach.

Maybe you should consider presenting arguments that make coherent sense and can be validated before rolling out "*crickets*"?

Also, it's not something you should post twice within the first ten minutes of your last word. Let it breathe for a minute.

Just a suggestion.

OMG!

Alright, I'll start at the beginning for you...

A-Apple
B-Baby
C-Cake
D-Dog

Keepin up so far?
Too fast?
BAWhahahaha!

The guy who doesn't understand what the word 'hypocrisy' means is accusing others of being slow?

Did you see who you replied to?

"This hits home for anyone who, day in and day out, mocks political, social and religious figures. In this country, we take it for granted it’s our right to poke fun at the untouchable or the sacred, but today’s tragedy in Paris reminds us, very viscerally, that it’s a right some people are forced to die for." (Conan O'Brien)

"I know very few people go into comedy as an act of courage, mainly because it shouldn't have to be that. It shouldn't be an act of courage, it should be taken as established law. But those guys at Hebdo had it and they were killed for their cartoons." (Jon Stewart)

Nobody should call out 40'!!! After all he does have an Abrams parked on his front lawn...

California newspaper office vandalized over use of 'illegal' immigrant label

The headquarters of the Santa Barbara News-Press in California was vandalized, apparently by pro-illegal immigration activists.
A California newspaper will continue to use the term "illegals" to describe people who enter the U.S. without permission, despite an attack on its building by vandals believed to object to the term.

The Santa Barbara News-Press's front entrance was sprayed with the message "The border is illegal, not the people who cross it" in red paint, sometime either Wednesday night or early Thursday, according to the newspaper's director of operations, Donald Katich. The attack came amid wider objections to a News-Press headline that used the word "illegals" alongside a story on California granting driver's licenses to people in the country illegally.

"It is an appropriate term in describing someone as “illegal” if they are in this country illegally."
- Statement from Santa Barbara News-Press

Fighting free speech with free speech. Hysterical.

Yes, good observation. Question though, are illegals protected under the Constitution for Free Speech when in this Country illegally?

I don't consider laws to be the here now, end now on natural rights.

In the traditional and historical view of the Supreme Court, yes, illegals are under the umbrella the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment, granting them fundamental constitutional rights that extend tho the First Amendment.

But wouldn't they be considered criminals while here illegally? Should they still be covered under first amendment rights?

1) While there are areas of felony disenfranchisements that can limit constitutional rights, none have ever applied to the First Amendment.

2) Yes.

Well I think there should be limits on Constitutional Rights of free speech to Foreigners here legally or illegally for safety sake and common sense.

Our freedom of speech can be abused and used against us whether its a citizen or foreigner.

How would affording constitutional rights of free speech to foreigners endanger safety?

And where is common sense present in such a proposition?



How so?

SKY NEWS REPORTS PARIS MASSACRE SUSPECTS KILLED, HOSTAGE FREED; HOSTAGES HELD IN PARIS DELI FREED, NO WORD ON FATE OF 2 HOSTAGE TAKERS

But what you consider doesn't mean anything to anyone but you.

You see, in some folks minds, someone could preach that non-Muslim civilians are legitimate targets for death. As long as they do not commit the acts, this is only free speech. If someone else acts upon what is preached then only the person acting is a criminal.

Welcome to the minds of PDR, Swish, CHSDawg, et al.

Yes, that is what an opinion is...

I like how you speak about overthrowing the government, killing many, many people, but God forbid someone say the same thing at a different demographic. That should be illegal. Conservatives are all the same, afraid of the people, authoritarian even when pretending to be libertarian.

This is coming from the guy who fancies himself a constitutionalist?

Sorry but that's false.

How come you don't advocate Westboro baptist church being charged if you feel this way? They endangered me and other soldiers on deployments by burning Qurans.

Or now that you think only heterosexuals benefit from marriage?

welcome to the minds of a hypocrite. Starring anarch and 40.

Who's speaking of overthrowing the government? All that I've ever done is make an observation about how societal cohesion is breaking down and how government actions are pushing us towards civil unrest. Government shouldn't feel that it will be immune to the unrest that I see occurring.

As for me, I don't think that we should accept Islamic law which cannot exist with our own law.

at the source.

How? There are plenty of things to dislike about them and to let the idiots at Westboro Baptist Church know that while they are doing something that's legal, that it isn't appropriate and will not be condoned.



I don't even know where you're coming from with this statement.

So who on this board is advocating Islamic law here in the states? Don't worry, I'll wait.

Considering your views, I think you'd be alright with it in some circumstances. You see, the problems being experienced in France is a direct result of Islamic law being practiced in 'police no-go zones' in some areas of French cities. This is actually underway in some places in this country as well.

You're being vague. What views have I shown that I would support this? I don't like any religions, let alone their religion specific laws. So what gives you the idea that I would tolerate a religion that I went to combat against in my own country?

well said

Our Government limits the free speech of foreigners and citizens in not allowing them to preach radical Islam and recruit Americans to help fight their cause in Iraq.
To me, this is a common sense and preservation of safety use of limits on free speech.

You think it's common sense for the United States government to restrict religious freedom and the free exchange of ideas?

Vandalism isn't free speech. Vandalism is punishable by law. You wanna oppose the papers reporting style, get yourself some sign board, put your opinion on it and peacefully assemble.

That is of course unless you're afraid of being deported for being here illegally.

Well in the case of radical Islam, thats exactly what our Gov is doing. Doesn't matter what I think.

Ted sees clearly.

Could you cite an example of the United States government arresting and prosecuting someone for preaching Islam?

Not saying it didn't happen (it certainly could have), just haven't seen it.