Re: Why do we need freedom of speech?
Bret Cahill
> > > > > > > > > the press enshrined in the highest law of the land. This freedom is upheld
> > > > > > > > > by every court of law in the land,
>
> > > > > > > > Huh?
>
> > > > > > > >www.bretcahill.com
>
> > > > > > > > > and clung to by every American citizen.
> > > > > > > > > There are practically no limits; you can say whatever you please, and the
> > > > > > > > > law is on your side.
>
> > > > > > > > > It is likely to stay that way for a long time, because freedom of speech is
> > > > > > > > > arguably the most popular freedoms we enjoy. It is our favorite amendment
> > > > > > > > > in the Bill of Rights, for one reason: freedom of speech is fun.
>
> > > > > > > > > However, suppose we turn back the clock to pre-1789 and the First Amendment
> > > > > > > > > is no longer in existence. Suppose you are one of many officials in charge
> > > > > > > > > of writing the Bill of Rights. What justifications would you give for
> > > > > > > > > establishing freedom of speech?
>
> > > > > > > > > Why do we need freedom of speech?
>
> > > > > > > > If you knew what freedom of speech was, you wouldn't be asking that
> > > > > > > > question.
>
> > > > > > > Since you have no idea what freedom of
> > > > > > > speech is, how would you know?
>
> > > > > > I know how to use free speech to force outspoken "market" economists
> > > > > > into full issue dodging mode.
>
> > > > > So not only aren't you clear on what free
> > > > > speech is,
>
> > > > You need a daffynition before you can support free speech?
>
> > > Where did I ask for a daffynition?
>
> > Don't dodge the question:
>
> > Here, we'll try again:
>
> > Do you need a daffynition before you can support free speech?
> What do you mean again?
Here, we'll try again:
Do you need a daffynition before you can support free speech?
>? You didn't phrase
> that as a question before. In any case, obviously
> I do.
FINALLY!
It was like pulling teeth to get the rightard to support free speech
but we made progress!
> The question before us is, do you?
Obviously more than GOP "free market" economists:
> > If you don't need a daffynition, then just say you support free
> > speech.
> I have already made it obvious that I do.
By demanding definitions for everything under the sun before
supporting free speech, you've already outed yourself as a censor.
> This is why I am trying to point out that
> your Newspeaky definition of free speech
Which is?
You'll need to make up your own daffynition here because the record
does not show I ever had one.
I don't need the daffynition subterfuge.
As stated above which you deleted/dodged [read: censored] without
comment, I cut a deal with Websters:
Websters doesn't out rightard censors and I don't do daffynitions.
Now, if you delete that again I'll repost it again.
> means that whatever you are supporting
> has nothing to do with free speech.
You did it _again_! You are now outing yourself every time you post!
Fascists would like the power to define which speech is "free
speech" [the speech they agree with] and which speech isn't speech
[the speech they disagree with and want to censor].
But the daffynition word game is moot.
Censorship is no longer possible.
That's why the GOP is info age road kill.
> > Or, if you want to be honest, just say you don't support free speech.
> Speaking of honesty, I find that to be
> a characteristic you lack.
Nutters find that Obama caused the Dec. '07 recession and the Oct. 08
credit meltdown too.
That's why We the People call you "nutters."
Rush Limbaugh said that Obama was causing GOP politicians to abandon
their family values even before he announced he'ld run for president.
The problem with that kind of villification of Obama is it's like the
foaming at the mouth antisemites saying the Jews control everything.
After awhile the average American will just think, "hey, buddy, if
Obama and the Jews are that powerful, you need to just give up. You
might as well be fighting God, Himself."
> All you are
> trying to do on Usenet these days is
> distract from the ultramoronic fiscal
> quagmire the Dems have perpetrated
> on us.
Why weren't Repugliars able to get anyone to believe than in 1936?
> > > > _Every_ censor _always_ demands a daffynition of free speech.
> > > Anyone who doesn't know what free speech is,
> > Who gets to decide what free speech is?
> Obviously, the Supreme Court.
That ain't you so all your daffynition word games were a waste of your
time weren't they?
> > The answer of course, is the dictator-censor.
> Ah, so now we see why you think that China
> has free speech but the US doesn't.
China has an increasing growth rate _in the middle of this global
recession_. At this rate China will have a larger economy than the U.
S. in 10 years.
Obviously China isn't wasting time on daffynition word games like the
fascist censors here in the U. S..
The Chinese and Indians will buy up all the oil for their 2 billion
SUVs and nutters will have to pay $25/gallon to drive around showing
off their gun racks.
> I get it
> now.
You may be too slow to have much of a future.
Bret Cahill
Shrikeback
> Here, we'll try again:
>
> Do you need a daffynition before you can support free speech?
I have always indicated my support for free speech.
I am a First Amendment absolutist. It is you who
supports something you call, "free speech on economic
issues," which evidently, the Chinese have, but the US
doesn't. Or didn't, until we spent 1.5 trillion bailing out
Warren Buffet.
> >? You didn't phrase
> > that as a question before. In any case, obviously
> > I do.
>
> FINALLY!
>
> It was like pulling teeth to get the rightard to support free speech
> but we made progress!
The only teeth you've pulled out is our own
dentures, which wasn't very hard, I'm sure.
> > The question before us is, do you?
>
> Obviously more than GOP "free market" economists:
>
> www.bretcahill.com
So you're LSD-inspired Berkely Buddhist
koan means you will continue to dodge
the question?
> > > If you don't need a daffynition, then just say you support free
> > > speech.
> > I have already made it obvious that I do.
>
> By demanding definitions for everything under the sun before
> supporting free speech, you've already outed yourself as a censor.
I didn't demand any definitions in this thread,
you silly old man.
> > This is why I am trying to point out that
> > your Newspeaky definition of free speech
>
> Which is?
Allah only knows. All we do know is that China
has it, but the US doesn't have it unless we spend
1.5 trillion bucks bailing out Warren Buffet.
> You'll need to make up your own daffynition here because the record
> does not show I ever had one.
So, in other words, it means nothing and everything?
It's just empty hand-waving?
> I don't need the daffynition subterfuge.
Of course, that would get in the way of your equivocation
subterfuge.
> As stated above which you deleted/dodged [read: censored] without
> comment, I cut a deal with Websters:
Wait, you cut a shitload to make it look as if the thread
was different than it was. So you admit to being a
censor? I merely cut for brevity to get rid of the detritus
and make things pretty. Anyway, it's not as if anyone
can't look upstream, unless they are some technologically
crippled AOL user or something like that.
> Websters doesn't out rightard censors and I don't do daffynitions.
>
> Now, if you delete that again I'll repost it again.
I don't even think I cut that part. Unless it was two posts
later. I don't feel like looking upthread at the moment
anyway, because it dodges the central issue; a while
back I posted a reply to the OP that actually presented
an argument for free speech, which was paraphrased
from John Stuart Mill. What have you done to show any
support for free speech?
Also, I think it's a bad sign when a First Amendment
absolutist such as myself is called a, "rightard," by
silly old leftards. It shows just how much Stalinist
creep has infected the leftards of the US.
> > means that whatever you are supporting
> > has nothing to do with free speech.
>
> You did it _again_! You are now outing yourself every time you post!
>
> Fascists would like the power to define which speech is "free
> speech" [the speech they agree with] and which speech isn't speech
> [the speech they disagree with and want to censor].
>
> But the daffynition word game is moot.
>
> Censorship is no longer possible.
>
> That's why the GOP is info age road kill.
So says our immigrant from AOL. When an
AOLer starts talking about the meaning of the,
"info age," it's a lot like Rush Limbaugh and
Michael Moore coming out with a fitness regimen.
Or a _Buns of Steel_ tape coming from Hillary
Clinton. Or Larry Craig and Ted Haggard
denouncing the homasekshul agenda. Or
you, for that matter, lecturing us about support
for free speech.
> > > Or, if you want to be honest, just say you don't support free speech.
> > Speaking of honesty, I find that to be
> > a characteristic you lack.
>
> Nutters find that Obama caused the Dec. '07 recession and the Oct. 08
> credit meltdown too.
>
> That's why We the People call you "nutters."
Strawman. What Obamalosi have done, however,
is pump up the budget deficit to historically high
levels (even if you _do_ correct for inflation, which
those who used to say the same thing about the
deficit a few years back never did.)
> Rush Limbaugh said that Obama was causing GOP politicians to abandon
> their family values even before he announced he'ld run for president.
So? What's your point? Oh yeah, the only reason
you git your hipwaders in a bunch about Rush is that
he is actually successful at being a troll. Well, keep
plugging at it, maybe you'll rack up more than a dozen
readers someday.
> The problem with that kind of villification of Obama is it's like the
> foaming at the mouth antisemites saying the Jews control everything.
Which foaming at the mouth antisemites are you on
about now... the Reverend Wright? "Cain't figger out
why them Jews... er, Zionists won't let me talk to
Barrack like I used to back in the good old days."
> After awhile the average American will just think, "hey, buddy, if
> Obama and the Jews are that powerful, you need to just give up. You
> might as well be fighting God, Himself."
The problem now is, that Obama isn't even as
powerful as he was a few months ago. Expect
that trend to continue.
> > All you are
> > trying to do on Usenet these days is
> > distract from the ultramoronic fiscal
> > quagmire the Dems have perpetrated
> > on us.
>
> Why weren't Repugliars able to get anyone to believe than in 1936?
You can fool a lot of the people a lot of the time.
Obviously. The New Deal didn't even get the US
out of the Depression. It took the most Keynesian
policy of all to accomplish that: WW2. But back
then, it was before the info age, and the fascistic
FDR with his payments to farmers for not growing
alfalfa, his attempts to pack the Supreme
Court, and his concentration camps for Japanese
Americans wouldn't survive in the info age.
His popularity would have collapsed as fast as
Carter/Obama's.
> > > > > _Every_ censor _always_ demands a daffynition of free speech.
> > > > Anyone who doesn't know what free speech is,
> > > Who gets to decide what free speech is?
> > Obviously, the Supreme Court.
>
> That ain't you so all your daffynition word games were a waste of your
> time weren't they?
Again (I know children, even if it's their second
childhood, learn by repetition):
I didn't demand a definition.
> > > The answer of course, is the dictator-censor.
> > Ah, so now we see why you think that China
> > has free speech but the US doesn't.
>
> China has an increasing growth rate _in the middle of this global
> recession_. At this rate China will have a larger economy than the U.
> S. in 10 years.
And your point is?
> Obviously China isn't wasting time on daffynition word games like the
> fascist censors here in the U. S..
So you admit that in your melting clock world,
China has free speech, and the US doesn't. QED.
It was like pulling dentures.
> The Chinese and Indians will buy up all the oil for their 2 billion
> SUVs and nutters will have to pay $25/gallon to drive around showing
> off their gun racks.
And this is because there is no free speech in the US,
but there is in China? We all get it now. QED.
> > I get it
> > now.
>
> You may be too slow to have much of a future.
Yawn. It was like pulling dentures that have been
soldered in to a metal jaw, but you finally got around
to admitting to your Maoist ways, eh, hoser?
Bret Cahill
> > Do you need a daffynition before you can support free speech?
> I have always indicated my support for free speech.
And you always betrayed yourself by stalling for time, asking for
daffynitions of free speech, dodging questions, playing word games.
> I am a First Amendment absolutist.
You are a 2nd Amend. nutter from the Tim McVeigh wing of the NRA. You
think you have a 2nd Amend. right to kill innocent people, take the
law into your own hands, assassinate public servants if you "git
pushed too far."
Ever consider that you might be on a list? I don't believe Obama was
using carnivore and the Patriot Act to identify violent hate filled
gun nutter bigots, but that's just me.
I don't know for sure.
Nutters ought to think twice before they "git pushed too far" and
start up the pu to go spreeing.
An evil fed might be waiting to administer a Third Eye.
> It is you who
> supports something you call, "free speech on economic
> issues," which evidently, the Chinese have,
The "inner kingdom" rulers of China ain't out there on the docks
counting containers. Apparently they've delegated _some_
responsibility. There ain't no way to delegate responsibility without
allowing _some_ free speech.
> but the US
> doesn't.
Hey, we got free speech on nakked nazi flagburner parades. We know we
have free speech on nakked nazi flagburner parades because the corp.
media gush hyped free speech on the imPOOORtant nakked nazi flagburner
parade issue 24/7/52 for decades.
No one has explained how that will help get the economy going but you
can be 100% certain we have free speech on _something_.
Now, if you git on WestGroup and search free speech or First Amendment
and "economic issues," you find only six opinions over the past 30
years where the words, "free speech" appeared with the word
"economic."
And that was purely coincidental. There are no cases in American
jurisprudence where freedom of speech was ever invoked on economic
issues.
Ask the corp. media about this and they'll tell you "Americans ain't
innerested in money."
Ain't them high paid corp. media whores cute?
Bret Cahill
"Can't figger out why I get paid so much to never figger anything
out."
-- Any U. S. Corp. Media Editor
Fred Oinka
Left wingers have NEVER supported ANY part of the bill of rights.
To claim otherwise is just another left wing lie.
Bret Cahill
Shrikeback
> > > Here, we'll try again:
> > > Do you need a daffynition before you can support free speech?
> > I have always indicated my support for free speech.
>
> And you always betrayed yourself by stalling for time, asking for
> daffynitions of free speech, dodging questions, playing word games.
I am not stalling for any time, why would
I need any time? I've got all the time I can
handle right now.
Anyway, whatever you want to accuse me of
is irrelevant to the discussion. I am merely
pointing out the self-evident truth that you
have no idea what freedom of speech means.
No questions, no time stalling. It is you
who have been trying to dance around the
point by promulating lies about me and so
on.
> > I am a First Amendment absolutist.
>
> You are a 2nd Amend. nutter from the Tim McVeigh wing of the NRA. You
> think you have a 2nd Amend. right to kill innocent people, take the
> law into your own hands, assassinate public servants if you "git
> pushed too far."
And to think you eat with that mouth.
I mean what ever happened to healthy
clean livin'? I am just saying that I tell
jokes that are funny because they are
true, you tell lies and think that's a joke.
> Ever consider that you might be on a list? I don't believe Obama was
> using carnivore and the Patriot Act to identify violent hate filled
> gun nutter bigots, but that's just me.
I'm on a billion lists, nay, a trillion and a half lists,
thanks. A trillion and a half dollars with our all
our names on it. Ain't the air so sweet-smelling these
days? God, I love the summer, now that it finally came.
> I don't know for sure.
We'll it's okay. You know that Godwin's Law thing?
Well, it doesn't tell the whole story. There's a huge
missing piece of the picture. That is, when you have
proven beyond even the shadow of a doubt that your
interlocutor is a fascists, you've won.
> > supports something you call, "free speech on economic
> > issues," which evidently, the Chinese have,
>
> The "inner kingdom" rulers of China ain't out there on the docks
> counting containers. Apparently they've delegated _some_
> responsibility. There ain't no way to delegate responsibility without
> allowing _some_ free speech.
So Stalin couldn't have slaughtered tens of
millions if he didn't allow free speech? It seems
an equivalent claim, and so we see that your
definition of free speech has nothing to do with
free speech. Thanks. You can sign over the
deed to the thread, because YOU lost.
> > but the US
> > doesn't.
>
> Hey, we got free speech on nakked nazi flagburner parades. We know we
> have free speech on nakked nazi flagburner parades because the corp.
> media gush hyped free speech on the imPOOORtant nakked nazi flagburner
> parade issue 24/7/52 for decades.
Hmm. We got free speech on far more attractive nekkid things
than nazi flagburners, but to each his own. If that's the sort of
fetish porn you're into, I mean, live how you want to live. It's your
internet, you paid for it. I'm just saying that you seem to like
that sort of thing, and I'd say you should be careful what you
wish for, because they wouldn't let you look at such smut over
there. QED.
> No one has explained how that will help get the economy going but you
> can be 100% certain we have free speech on _something_.
Oh, so you think free speech is a threat to getting the economy
going? That whole security versus liberty thing going on there?
> Now, if you git on WestGroup and search free speech or First Amendment
> and "economic issues," you find only six opinions over the past 30
> years where the words, "free speech" appeared with the word
> "economic."
So?
> And that was purely coincidental. There are no cases in American
> jurisprudence where freedom of speech was ever invoked on economic
> issues.
Yeah, because freedom of speech on economic issues is
not suppressed in this country. Look it up on WestGroup.
Oh you already did.
> Ask the corp. media about this and they'll tell you "Americans ain't
> innerested in money."
Money they are interested in. Boring and weird propaganda
ain't quite enough to get people's dander up enough to want
to wage a free speech jihad against it.
> Ain't them high paid corp. media whores cute?
Not as cute as the above line. It's adorable.
> "Can't figger out why I get paid so much to never figger anything
> out."
>
> -- Any U. S. Corp. Media Editor
Are you saying that the Copro Media pump and dump of
Obama you predicted is coming true? That one was a
long time coming, now, wasn't it?
Shrikeback
Okay, so you guys were sitting around on acid
back in the Sixties, and then what happened?
Bret Cahill
> > > > Here, we'll try again:
> > > > Do you need a daffynition before you can support free speech?
> > > I have always indicated my support for free speech.
>
> > And you always betrayed yourself by stalling for time, asking for
> > daffynitions of free speech, dodging questions, playing word games.
> I am not stalling for any time,
You were demanding definitions, playing word games, claiming I had
novel definitions of free speech which you could never locate in the
record. . .
Clearly you are worried about something and we all know what that
something is:
Free speech on economic issues.
> why would
> I need any time?
Because you want to be a censor but you want to fool others into
believing you support freedom.
But you always out yourself like when you denied you were "anti fag."
. . .
> > > supports something you call, "free speech on economic
> > > issues," which evidently, the Chinese have,
> > The "inner kingdom" rulers of China ain't out there on the docks
> > counting containers. Apparently they've delegated _some_
> > responsibility. There ain't no way to delegate responsibility without
> > allowing _some_ free speech.
> So Stalin couldn't have slaughtered tens of
> millions if he didn't allow free speech?
That's why Stalin was able to stack up so many bodies.
Like Pol Pot, Mao, Saddam, the GOP and every other economy wrecking
causing despotism, he was a censor.
And anyone can prove to himself the GOP is based on censorship.
> It seems
> an equivalent claim, and so we see that your
> definition of free speech has nothing to do with
> free speech.
Again, what was "[my] definition" of free speech and where did you see
it?
Like I said, I don't do definitions like you wanna be censors.
I cut a deal with Websters. I don't define terms and Websters doesn't
expose rightard fraud censors.
> Thanks.
> You can sign over the
> deed to the thread, because YOU lost.
You don't even have a single nutter, not a single sock puppet who'll
back you up.
This is a good lesson for the Tim McVeigh wing of the NRA. Tim
McVeigh thought that his terrorist attack would inspire nutters
everywhere to git together and start shooting them evil feds just like
in an excitin' Hollywood movie.
Instead McVeigh got The Needle alone.
The other nutters were no where to be seen.
> > > but the US
> > > doesn't.
> > Hey, we got free speech on nakked nazi flagburner parades. We know we
> > have free speech on nakked nazi flagburner parades because the corp.
> > media gush hyped free speech on the imPOOORtant nakked nazi flagburner
> > parade issue 24/7/52 for decades.
> Hmm. We got free speech on
on anything that will get GM out of Chapt. 11?
. . .
> > No one has explained how that will help get the economy going but you
> > can be 100% certain we have free speech on _something_.
> Oh, so you think free speech is a threat to getting the economy
> going?
Clearly anything that displaces [effectively censors] free speech on
economic issues can be a threat to the economy.
It doesn't matter if free speech on economic issues is displaced by
the ACLU spamming the docket with nakked nazi flag burner parades, it
doesn't matter free speech on economic issues is displaced from the
public debate by the corp media hyping nakked nazi flag burner
parades, free speech on economic issues must not be displaced.
Yer too-clever-by-half word games ain't workin' out too well, is they?
Here's a bit of legal advice because I've seen other looneytarians
make the same mistake in court.
If you every try a word game like "well that's depends on the
definition of jail" with a judge it's easy to predict what the judge
will do.
He'll get really quiet and say, "Well Mr. Nutter, I cut a deal with
Websters so you are going to be given the opportunity to come up with
your _own_ definition of jail." He'll turn to the baliff and say
"give him 30 days to discover the meaning of jail."
> > Now, if you git on WestGroup and search free speech or First Amendment
> > and "economic issues," you find only six opinions over the past 30
> > years where the words, "free speech" appeared with the word
> > "economic."
> So?
You think rights are like pieces of metal you can keep in the drawer
and never need to be exercised to stay in good condition?
Ooops. Wrong response.
That won't work on a nutter.
A nutter thinks rights are something you can buy at WalMart, stick
into a drawer and they will be there forever, as long as you use
enough gun oil.
> > And that was purely coincidental. There are no cases in American
> > jurisprudence where freedom of speech was ever invoked on economic
> > issues.
> Yeah, because freedom of speech on economic issues is
> not suppressed in this country.
Then what are you so worried about?
Methinks our "non censor" doth protest too much:
> > Ask the corp. media about this and they'll tell you "Americans ain't
> > innerested in money."
> Money they are interested in.
Then why are there so many imPOOORtant free speech controversies on
naked nazi flagburner parades and none on money?
> Boring and weird propaganda
> ain't quite enough to get people's dander up enough to want
> to wage a free speech jihad against it.
Then it ought to be easy to pick up a quick $200.
> > Ain't them high paid corp. media whores cute?
> Not as cute as the above line. It's adorable.
> > "Can't figger out why I get paid so much to never figger anything
> > out."
>
> > -- Any U. S. Corp. Media Editor
> Are you saying that the Copro Media pump and dump of
> Obama you predicted is coming true? That one was a
> long time coming, now, wasn't it?
Not by choice or design.
They had no idea Obama would get into office because they had no idea
the GOP tax cut meltdown would happen in October.
The corp. media screwed up as bad a Wile E. Coyote.
Bret Cahill
Bret Cahill
>
> >www.bretcahill.com
>
> > Bret Cahill
>
> Okay, so you guys were sitting around on acid
> back in the Sixties, and then what happened?
Try not to spree but if you must spree, try to spree local. Just
shoot up your doublewide.
Bret Cahill
John Stafford
7704711a-b955-4975...@x25g2000prf.googlegroups.com, "Bret
Cahill" <BretC...@peoplepc.com> wrote:
You are a total boor. Come up with a new mantra.
Alex Cunningham
>> Try not to spree but if you must spree, try to spree local. Just
>> shoot up your doublewide.
>
Given his limited intellect I doubt that he can.
It's quite probable the one he uses he plagiarised from some other left
wingnut.
--
Cheers!
Alex.C
There are twelve million sheep in Ontario.
Problem is nine million of them think they are people.
Bret Cahill
>
> >>>www.bretcahill.com
>
> >>> Bret Cahill
>
> >> Okay, so you guys were sitting around on acid
> >> back in the Sixties, and then what happened?
> > Try not to spree but if you must spree, try to spree local. Just
> > shoot up your doublewide.
> You are a total boor.
Ain't _nothing_ more boring than a nutter hyping ammo buying sprees.
Keep that up and you'll bore all 14 billion people off the internet.
Bret Cahill
Bret Cahill
> >> shoot up your doublewide.
>
> > You are a total boor. Come up with a new mantra.
>
> Given his limited intellect I doubt that he can.
> It's quite probable the one he uses he plagiarised from some other left
> wingnut.
All it will take is another dozen nutters repeating "and the ammo is
selling like hot cakes" or some other out of date hackeneyed
expression to bore all 14 billion people off the internet.
Bret Cahill
Shrikeback
> > > > Left wingers have NEVER supported ANY part of the bill of rights.
>
> > >www.bretcahill.com
>
> > > Bret Cahill
>
> > Okay, so you guys were sitting around on acid
> > back in the Sixties, and then what happened?
>
> shoot up your doublewide.
But it's a rule, never ever pick up a gun or
a keyboard connected to the internet when
you're tripping.
Bret Cahill
>
> > > >www.bretcahill.com
>
> > > > Bret Cahill
>
> > > Okay, so you guys were sitting around on acid
> > > back in the Sixties, and then what happened?
>
> > Try not to spree but if you must spree, try to spree local. Just
> > shoot up your doublewide.
>
> But it's a rule, never ever pick up a gun or
> a keyboard connected to the internet when
> you're tripping.
How would anyone be able to tell if a nutter gittin' pushed too far
was on LSD or not?
Bret Cahill
John Stafford
db99869a-3bb3-4b97...@m7g2000prd.googlegroups.com,
"Shrikeback" <shrik...@gmail.com> wrote:
Or just plain Bret Cahill.
Alex Cunningham
> > > > > Left wingers have NEVER supported ANY part of the bill of rights.
>
> > > >www.bretcahill.com
>
> > > > Bret Cahill
>
> > > Okay, so you guys were sitting around on acid
> > > back in the Sixties, and then what happened?
>
> > Try not to spree but if you must spree, try to spree local. Just
> > shoot up your doublewide.
>
> But it's a rule, never ever pick up a gun or
> a keyboard connected to the internet when
> you're tripping.
>
"Bret Cahill" <BretC...@aol.com> wrote:
How would anyone be able to tell if a nutter gittin' pushed too far
was on LSD or not?
Just look in a mirror, sonny.
--
Cheers!
Alex.C
There are twelve million sheep in Ontario.
Problem is nine million of them think they are people.
Bret Cahill
Bret Cahill
>
> > > > >www.bretcahill.com
>
> > > > > Bret Cahill
>
> > > > Okay, so you guys were sitting around on acid
> > > > back in the Sixties, and then what happened?
>
> > > Try not to spree but if you must spree, try to spree local. Just
> > > shoot up your doublewide.
>
> > But it's a rule, never ever pick up a gun or
> > a keyboard connected to the internet when
> > you're tripping.
>
>
> How would anyone be able to tell if a nutter gittin' pushed too far
> was on LSD or not?
>
> Just look in a mirror, sonny.
I saw a health nutter who doesn't believe the 2nd Amendment is about
spree shooting when a gun nutter has gotten "pushed too far."
Anyway you dodged the question:
How would anyone be able to tell if a gun nutter gittin' pushed too
far was on LSD or not?
Bret Cahill
Alex Cunningham
in message
news:84db23fc-1f4c-4a2e...@i8g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
> > > > > > Left wingers have NEVER supported ANY part of the bill of
> > > > > > rights.
>
> > > > >www.bretcahill.com
>
> > > > > Bret Cahill
>
> > > > Okay, so you guys were sitting around on acid
> > > > back in the Sixties, and then what happened?
>
> > > Try not to spree but if you must spree, try to spree local. Just
> > > shoot up your doublewide.
>
> > But it's a rule, never ever pick up a gun or
> > a keyboard connected to the internet when
> > you're tripping.
>
> "Bret Cahill" <BretCah...@aol.com> wrote:
> How would anyone be able to tell if a nutter gittin' pushed too far
> was on LSD or not?
>
> Just look in a mirror, sonny.
"Bret Cahill" <BretC...@aol.com> wrote:
I saw a health nutter who doesn't believe the 2nd Amendment is about
spree shooting when a gun nutter has gotten "pushed too far."
Anyway you dodged the question:
How would anyone be able to tell if a gun nutter gittin' pushed too
far was on LSD or not?
You dodged the answer, sonny. Check in the mirror if you wish to see what a
mental nutter, gun or otherwise looks like.
Shrikeback
> Methinks our "non censor" doth protest too much:
It seems I really got your sputter gland going
into overdrive. Clearly you are vexxed. Therefore
I am right about you. Anyway, in the interest
of brevity and getting to the point of this thread,
I will heavily clip the irrelevant, repetitive, and
yawn-fest inducing from this post. Everything
I quote of yours will be verbatim, of course.
It's not like anyone interested couldn't look up
the thread anyway.
Anyway, you seem to want to digress into your
usual scripts to dodge the verdict, but the jury
is in; your daffynition of free speech is indeed
daffy.
> Clearly you are worried about something and we all know what that
> something is:
>
> Free speech on economic issues.
>
> www.bretcahill.com
Some punchline.
> > > The "inner kingdom" rulers of China ain't out there on the docks
> > > counting containers. Apparently they've delegated _some_
> > > responsibility. There ain't no way to delegate responsibility without
> > > allowing _some_ free speech.
> > So Stalin couldn't have slaughtered tens of
> > millions if he didn't allow free speech?
>
> That's why Stalin was able to stack up so many bodies.
I'm guessing you're jealous. Probably a Trotskyite.
Regardless, the analogy stands. Stalin had to delegate
responsibility in order to rack up that many bodies.
He didn' td it by hisself, you know.
> Like Pol Pot, Mao, Saddam, the GOP and every other economy wrecking
> causing despotism, he was a censor.
The problem with the above is that the current Government
of China is missing. In terms of free speech, they are up
there, even if they are a little less anal and bloody than
their predecessors.
You go blog about this shit in China for a while. Test
the well-known self-evident claim.
> > It seems
> > an equivalent claim, and so we see that your
> > definition of free speech has nothing to do with
> > free speech.
>
> Again, what was "[my] definition" of free speech and where did you see
> it?
Obviously, it was what China has (i.e. censorship)
instead of what the US has (i.e. the most liberal
free speech laws on the planet.)
> > > No one has explained how that will help get the economy going but you
> > > can be 100% certain we have free speech on _something_.
> > Oh, so you think free speech is a threat to getting the economy
> > going?
>
> Clearly anything that displaces [effectively censors] free speech on
> economic issues can be a threat to the economy.
And so your claim is that free speech gits in the
way of the ever so important repetitive propaganda
speech? Because people don't pay as much
attention to you as you'd like?
turtoni
Brett should feel free to go on a profanity spree and freedom up his
double wide.
Let's face it. Brett is an out an out nut and this freedom of speech
crutch is his opportunity rally behind calling people niggertards to
inflate his inverted bellyache. I congratulate Brett in enabling
shrikeback's eloquence to unleash itself.
Lucky Skunk
>On Mon, 20 Jul 2009 00:06:09 -0700 (PDT), Shrikeback
><shrik...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> > I am a First Amendment absolutist.
>>>
>>> You are a 2nd Amend. nutter from the Tim McVeigh wing of the NRA. �You
>>> think you have a 2nd Amend. right to kill innocent people, take the
>>> law into your own hands, assassinate public servants if you "git
>>> pushed too far."
>>
>>And to think you eat with that mouth.
>>I mean what ever happened to healthy
>>clean livin'? I am just saying that I tell
>>jokes that are funny because they are
>>true, you tell lies and think that's a joke.
Since when is libel and slander free speech?