Who Is the Expert on Extreme Rhetoric?
Really, no one can speak with more authority about rhetoric becoming overheated than liberals, based on their conduct during the Bush years. They were calling him BusHitler, denying he could ever have good motives for anything he did, and they were so embroiled in their own hate-filled rhetoric as to place themselves completely outside of reasonable debate. If conservatives ever thought they were becoming like that, it would be a huge eye-opener. So there really is no one better suited to talk to conservatives about the dangers of extreme rhetoric than liberals. It’s like how you have former drug addicts talk about the dangers of drugs, because they personally know the horrors of drug addiction.
Of course, with liberals lately, it’s more like someone who is obviously high coming on stage with a needle sticking out of his arm and smoking pot, saying, “You guys need to stop doing drugs so you can be sober like me, man.” It’s not really convincing anyone. And their ideas on what kind of rhetoric leads to violence seems questionable.
Like, I’ve heard a lot of concern over how Sarah Palin put up a map with crosshairs on all the congressional districts she was targeting for takeover, as if that might lead to violence. Is that based on introspection? Are liberals saying that if they were exposed to the image of crosshairs, they would start hurting people? Or is this once again them saying that something is not true for them but true for everybody else? I’d excuse people if they didn’t trust liberals on their abilities to predict human behavior, because if the left were able to do that, they wouldn’t have been caught so off guard by tea parties forming in the first place.
Also, how can liberals expect to lecture people on overheated rhetoric when they currently seem even crazier and more desperate than they were during the Bush administration? Recently, the spokesman for GEICO lost his job because he was so concerned about overheated rhetoric from the tea parties that he called up FreedomWorks to tell them they are retarded.
What exactly was the best possible outcome he expected from that? Basically, liberals are all starting to believe their own rhetoric about the right being unhinged, and it’s making them unhinged. Joe Klein recently raised the specter of sedition in relation to Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck. Soon, we’ll probably hear liberals saying, “Conservatives are becoming just like Nazis! We need to round them up and put them into camps to stop them!”
So, again, the keyword is “introspection.” Liberals have a lot to teach conservatives about the dangers of letting political rhetoric go too far, but they need to have the humility to take an honest look at themselves if they want conservatives to listen. But should conservatives be more introspective before criticizing liberals’ behavior? Of course not; we don’t have time for navel-gazing. What are we? A bunch of hippies?
American left-liberals increasingly resemble Muslims in their attitudes toward dissent. Perhaps we’ll soon see liberal suicide bombers shrieking “Obama Akhbar!” and blowing up at sports bars, crisis pregnancy centers, John Wayne festivals, and other hotbeds of hate-filled conservative activism.
It’s funny you mention Muslims because I put liberals in the same category as Muslims as a group whose opinions mean jack-squat to me. I’d rather listen to nails scraping on a chalkboard for all eternity than one syllable out of a liberal’s mouth.
Geez- that was hysterical. Thanks. I needed a good laugh!
“Dissent is the highest form of patriotism.”
*Ahem* If you want extreme rhetoric, you can find it in the writings of the friends of the current President and their teachers: Rev. Wright and Bill Ayers spring immediately to mind.
I remember going to a stock car race ~25 years ago. My then brother in law remarked “I bet he’s pissed” in observation of a guy who was black-flagged (thrown out of the race) for spinning a competitor – trouble was the track steward only saw the retaliation – he never saw the first offense. Anyway – I had a (small) epiphany over that comment. I realized that put in the place of the disqualified racer Dave would indeed have been ‘pissed’. He was replacing that racers emotional response to the situation with how he would have responded had he been in that car.
He HAD to be pissed Dave insisted to me. How could it be otherwise? Dave is a liberal to this day. Typically liberal. He overlays his own emotions and though processes onto others now just as he did 25 years ago.
The point of this little story is that liberals tend to think this way – if they are mad (pissed according to Dave) and the product of that anger could be action (violence) then the only logical outcome – in their minds – is an angry Tea Party crowd will become violent. There is no other path for this anger to lead to except anger.
This is how they think. Sort of like in the mind of the thief the whole world and every one in it are (potentially) thieves.
That or they are just angry at the Tea Party et al for hijacking their tactics.
Be wary that it is true for anyone who has violence in their hearts. In these times it is apparent that violence is in many hearts, on all political sides and creeds. With the extent of violence in video games and other forms of entertainment, that fulfill such lust for destruction.
Violence is in the heart of every man. So what? It’s actions we should be concerned about. While all the lefties are whining about the possibility of violence from the Tea Partiers, there has in fact been no violence. The only violence has come from the left. That’s where it always comes from.
But is it equal in every man? So, it isn’t ‘so, what’. If your policy is to wait for violent thoughts to manifest themselves I doubt it would be considered wisdom.
Therefore, what was once superficial is now true emanation. You know them by their fruit.
Yes, waiting until someone actually does something wrong is foolish. Clearly, we should institute thought crime legislation immediately.
KevinB, violence is merely a solution that solves a given set of problems. Just as the solution for a house fire is a water hose, the solution (and the only one which history shows is effective) to slavemasters, from the plantation to the collective, is violence whether credibly promised or actually carried out.
The left is prone to see tools as active agents; not so. Violence used to resist a robber or murderer may take the same form as violence used for robbery or murder, but the difference is not in the violence but the reason it is used.
But Frank I thought camp was fun, you know “work makes freedom” “arbecht mach frei”,have a good weekend,
Bob
Those saying that the rhetoric of the Tea Parties and other opposed to the policies of President Obama are just trying to shut the opposition up. They are not liberal at all, but socialists at best, well-described by Jonah Goldberg in his book “Liberal Fascism.”
President Clinton is wrong about Timothy McVeigh, who was bombed the Federal Building in Oklahoma City in revenge for the killing of those living at the headquarters of David (?) Koresh in Waco Texas, following orders from Janet Reno, Attorney General under President Clinton.
You make an interesting point. You may be aware that information about the disaster that was Waco has surfaced recently. According to some accounts Clinton made the decision to end it however they could. When it ended with the deaths of all inside the the ‘compound’ and a few of the gestapo outside – Clinton didn’t want anything to do with it. Reno took the blame – when Clinton went shopping for another AG Reno apparently had to remind him of his culpability in the Waco disaster.
Question: When is a house (farmhouse etc) not a house – and instead transformed into a ‘compound’? When the government gestapo has it surrounded. Specifically when its on the MSM’s nightly newscasts.
David Koresh was a Cult Leader who instilled the values of nihilism and secrecy in his followers. Good riddance.
One day we will probably see a similar situation happen with those of the islamic persuasion. Only I expect a few more explosions when it comes to the Mecca Neck cultists.
And what was their crime, punishable by murder without a trial?
Thanks for playing, but it’s not a game.
It reminds us of ourselves during the Bush years.
Oh, that wonderful time when we murdered thousands of Iraqis and Afghans. Yes, those howible libewals calling us hateful names, while we jerked off to the mass murder. Poor little us.
Are you so mentally challenged that you can’t connect the dots in this article?
Was that a rhetorical question?
“What’s that flying far above my head?”
“That’s the point of the article.”
“It makes me confused and angry! I want to bite it!”
The Russians were at war with Afghanistan for years, the Iranians were at war with Iraq for years, were they “murderers” too or is it ok for terrorists and communists to “murder” people?….you know, like OBAMA does now. Since you have such love for those poor “innocent” people, why don’t you go live there? Since you seem to think it’s only “murder” when we do it, you won’t have a problem with them
murderingkilling you in the name of Allah….right?Liberals killed more in WWII and the Vietnam war. You, sir are vacuous.
This article is itself a rhetorical device.
Why not learn about Righteousness and abide with that instead of your oh so lofty intellects. You do not need to rebut your opponent always. Liberals actually DO have a right to say whatever crap they feel like. It may be more wise to allow them to spew their idiotic drivel and venom while those targets stay mum. Be wiser.
As far as we have seen it is their people that are appearing in the news. God will make their judgments right. Do you understand this? It doesn’t mean that God will justify what they say, but that their judgment will be on their own heads. That is how judgment is made right. When that happens the hat drops and we know who was with the truth and who was full of lies and hatred. If they are wrong they are wrong, and if they are right they are right.
We do not need to go round in circles with liberals. Take a stand for righteousness, and for that alone. There is nothing more intellectually satisfying than standing by your convictions, (which sometimes entails giving the intellectual one-upping games a rest).
I believe it was G. K. Chesterton who said something like, “Good philosophy must exist, if only because bad philosophy needs to be answered.”
If that’s too erudite for you, let’s put it this way. We have two choices. We can either answer their claims, or they win by default. The second position is intolerable to me, and to most conservatives.
zzzzzz… you didn’t listen to what I wrote. Yes, listen.
Everything that liberals say can be argued to be “opportunistic”. In the pleasant vein of not going insane, it is not necessary to answer everything. What I’m saying is that when someone starts making accusations of non-existent violence it is better to let their judgmental words be the end of the matter, so it may play itself out. That way you are not making the false judgment, because we are not to judge each other’s hearts, understand?… By not answering you are not making a judgment about the liberal’s heart, but showing wisdom and discernment and prudence…
You are also giving God a reason to judge between the two parties, as we are all judged as individuals, when your opponent goes off the deep-end it is better to let them go alone.
You are doing the thing I was warning against. Trying to beat liberals intellectually on all counts whenever an accusation seems to be fronted. To me, it is likely that Chris Matthews, and the like, say such things to aggravate anti-Obamites. It purposely has no weight, as we see from the actual news, so when you go into some argument about how they are wrong and opportunistic you are in effect nibbling on the line. Even if you are right in a sense, they were only fishing the whole time and your rebuttal was ultimately pointless (probably like mine here, or is it?).
It’s like when Conservatives say Liberals are mentally unstable, or something to that effect (even if you believe it’s true). Because, the effect is if they respond to it – it’s a trap.
Please, explain that you’re not crazy…
Please, explain that you’re not violent…
It’s fine within your own circles to talk about opponents along these terms, but to do so directly, or as if directly, is for trapping.
Something else, for an example. Maybe, you (theoretically, because not that you would) can say that “some evidence of violence” for liberals is that they can point out some who open-carry firearms at rallies. However, this is still playing into their baiting for “violence”, because what I’ve seen at rallies are holstered and secured weapons. I would allow that pointing a weapon is symbolic of violence, but have we seen this? No, so liberals want you to respond so that you are implicitly acknowledging that you agree that a holstered gun is a symbol of violence. There is a lot that we SHOULD let liberals stand alone by. It is NOT necessary to answer all, because all bad philosophy is not bad without a purpose. To trap you.
However, if you are aware of this it is possible to answer them, because Answer a fool according to his folly lest he be wise in his own eyes, AND Do not answer a fool according to his folly unless you become like him. This is essentially saying, do not discourse with a foolish person according to their terms.
When you discourse with liberals on their terms they are really, in cases like this, just setting you up to pull the rug from beneath you. You are allowing common-ground that is really not your ground, and is really theirs.
“zzzzz…” ?
Nice way to start your comments.
I think I’ll just ignore you and your opinions from here on out.
That was a mistake to begin like that. I really didn’t mean it to read like I was dozing after or while reading your reply. It was supposed to be like a ‘z’ sound to engage the ear. To listen to what I was saying, (as I implied in what followed), and not just read through it. Maybe, that seems like splitting hairs to some extent, but I was only attempting to prime the pump of your attention. It might seem presumptuous but I know I am right, and I don’t think you did read all of my comment, nor the one that followed. If it is because of the beginning, I’m sorry.
It really wasn’t intended to be a slight. You weren’t running on or anything, so it wouldn’t make sense if you think about it. It was supposed to be like buzzzzzzzz without the bu. Like, nananananana (in Caddyshack)… for the ear, but for reading…
It was the coffee.
It didn’t work.
KevinB – I have no idea if your thinking is clear, because your writing isn’t. Get an editor.
“Everything that liberals say can be argued to be “opportunistic”. In the pleasant vein of not going insane, it is not necessary to answer everything.”
Too clever by half, Sir.
The enemy’s schwerpunkt must be defeated, or they win. That accusations made by the liberals against the Tea Party are not a distraction, they are to date the Left’s schwerpunkt. This article in opposition to the Left is not a misplaced effort.
Great article. Honestly for me anymore i have stopped caring what libs think. They will call us racist, violent, stupid,etc regardless of if it is true or not. The left knows all about violent protests because thats the only kind they know. I do believe while they are wholey wrong about us. We MUST take our protests up a couple of nothces. We must defend our selves and say not take the high road so much. Esp when looking at these lib protests, who is in them, and what they really do and say. These people wont stop until they win. and they do what it takes to win. To me these people are petulant children, nothing more. They think ike children, reason like children,speak like children and throw tantrums like children when they do not get their will. There is nothing wrong at all with trying to reason with these children and talk to them. But like children they see a new toy they want, when they want it, and they do not care how they get it or if it can be done. they just want it. PERIOD. And while a ‘timeout’ is ok once in awhile. sometimes it must come down to “im bigger than you’ take off yer belt, throw them over yer knee and spank that ass til its purple in the middle of K-mart for all the world to see and to show who is BOSS!
I was walking down the street the other day when Sarah Palin’s violent rhetoric suddenly caused me to fly into a paranoid, homicidal rage. Fortunately, I drank a Dr. Pepper and calmed down before I actually harmed any minorities. It’s a good thing I don’t watch Glenn Beck or the death toll would have been in the hundreds.
(BTW, how long does it take the average liberal to build the little world they live in?)
In addition – who has used violence recently? Several weeks ago, at a Republican convention in New Orleans, an organized group attacked those attending. The two organizers had to be hospitalized. Who were the attackers – not the famous “right-wing conspiracy”!
“Don’t spit in the well. You may have to drink the water.”
The ‘progressives’ are more prone to violence and destruction because their ideology leads them to believe someone else will ‘pay’.
Conservatives know better than to ‘mess in their nest’ because they understand the actual costs comes out of their pockets.
Leftie idealogues have been spewing hate since long before the days of Dubya. Remember “In Robert Bork’s America”, or the spittle spewing shouts of “Baby-Killers!” directed at guys coming back from ‘Nam? Come to think of it, those leftie statist idealogues back in the 30′s used to yell out “Ein Reich! Ein Volk! Ein Fuhrer!” too, different language but the same mindset.
“There really is no one better suited to talk to conservatives about the dangers of extreme rhetoric than liberals.”
Hi 7. Principal Levine.
161. Principal Levine
“Little Jenny: Mommie/Daddy what were you doing when the country fell apart?”
May 23, 2010 – 5:27 pm
7. Principal Levine
“Little Jenny: [crying]” “…calling us hateful names…” “Little Jenny: Oh [stifling embarrassed tears]” “while we jerked off…”
May 29, 2010 – 8:54 am
43. Principal Levine
“…spontaneous racist ejaculation is a problem…”
May 20, 2010 – 10:59 am
“Little Jenny: [crying]” “Poor little us”.
May 29, 2010 – 8:54 am
158. skeeziks
“Little Jenny: [brightening]” “…sucking a donkey dick or eating a dog turd…”
May 23, 2010 – 9:28 am
Notice a pattern here? Little Jenny The Principal Liar Le sleazits all dressed up as Onan the Wannabe Jihadist showing home videos of it performing at the International Cesspoolers Ritual Self Abasement Finals.
Gee Little Jenny The Principal Liar Le sleazits, I see you placed second in the Blenderized Diarrhea Guzzling contest, right behind a certain Mr. Gibbs! Way to go! At long last all that coprophagic practice in the early morning has finally semi-paid of! Good dog! Mmm, mmm, mmm, those lawn chocolates really do attract your Kyber personality.
69. skeeziks:
“You remind me of my granddaughter who yesterday got caught feeding chocolate to Kyber our dog.”
Jan 29, 2010 – 9:05 am
To review – the much needed Onan reference with Disguised Penis Envy –
“Little Jenny: Oh [stifling embarrassed tears]” “while we jerked off…” “…sucking a donkey dick…”
Hmmm. Do you think Mr. President would condone such actions? Careful, He may order you to “Plug the damn hole”.
Then what will your prototype underwear bombed crotch do?
Where’s Le Oscar and Le Gould?
Was Van Jones in these home videos too? No, I think he has more class that The Principal Liar Onan the Wannabe Jihadst does.
Whatever.
The right hasn’t become even 1/10th as enraged as the left was during the Bush administration. I should know. I was a hardcore leftist activist until 2005 when I finally woke up and became disillusioned with Marxism. And now I’m a hardcore right wing Tea Party activist. The right is nowhere even near the level of venom and hatred that I saw and did myself during my time on the left. The left is just trying to shut us up. Just ignore them. Become an even more passionate and outspoken political activist for the right if you want to save our country from self-destructive socialism. The survival of our freedom and prosperity is at stake.
The most hilarious thing about you fake conservatives, is how you interpret even the slightest criticism as hate-mongering extremism. Were you, or were you not cheerleading a war that led to the deaths of eight thousand Iraqis, and continues to kill five to eigh hundred innocent Afghans a year? Its a simple question, no matter what you think of the relative merits of the war. When I support something, I take responsibility for all of it, even its negative aspects, Not you people. Oh please don’t tell us that our wonderful wars kill people. That’s hate speech.
Drivel Queen alert!
Only 8000? sounds like a week under Saddam.
Wars do kill people. Successful wars kill more of your enemies. Don’t want a war with us? Don’t invade our allies or harbor and fund groups who do. Simple enough even for a leftard to grasp.
Are you or are you not following an ideology that’s killed 100+ million people during the 20th century, and continues to this day? Yeah, I know you’ll have some snarky answer like “No, I ain’t a conservative” or some drivel like that.
And heaven forbid we try and defend ourselves against animals that would kill far more innocent people here, on our shores, in our cities, than the amount of “innocents” you claim we’ve killed in Iraq and Afghanistan. That’s the reason we are fighting there, because that’s where they are, and we want to keep it that way. War is the most horrible of human endeavors, but surrender in the face of barbarians is worse. What would your life, your kids lives, be like under islam and sharia? Or are you one of those people who would gladly adopt any ideology, submit to any tyranny to save your wretched skin? Better to live on your knees than die on your feet?
No, we were supporting a war that killed Baathist and Taliban scum who murdered tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis and Afghans each year, whilst Eurotrash tranzies paid the late unlamented Saddam Hussein billion-dollar bribes for access to oil.
What wars are your cartoon messiah supporting now, Princy?
So if they really are worried about extreme rhetoric leading to violence -
then they would do someting about SEUI Thugs beating down Convervative minorities and MoveOn Goons biting off the fingers of Seniors.
Fen’s Law: The Left doesn’t really believe in the things they lecture us about.
Only a fool would believe the Left is worried about rhetoric leading to violence.
Were you, or were you not cheerleading a war that led to the deaths of eight thousand Iraqis
Nope. I was cheerleading a war that led to the Liberation of 25 million Iraqis.
And dont pretend that you give a damn for those that died. You use them as a prop.
“The most hilarious thing about you fake conservatives, is how you interpret even the slightest criticism as hate-mongering extremism.”
This is an accurate statement as directed at Barack “I won’t raise taxes on the middle class” Obama. Fake conservatism – check. Thin-skinned – check. Vilifies opponents – check.
“…is how you interpret even the slightest criticism as hate-mongering extremism.”
The subject of this post is generally referred to as “projection”, of which you have just provided an excellent example.
“…the slightest criticism….”
Uh huh:
http://www.zombietime.com/hall_of_shame/
This wouldn’t be happening if Obama was President. Impeach Sarah Palin!
If only Barack Obama had been elected and old John McCain hadn’t died, we wouldn’t have a clueless radical demagogue in the White House whose only talent is giving a speech to fire up the rubes.
If only we had listened to the media.
Oh wait ….
As is usual when we reach this point politically we find the “liberals” mirror imaging their emotional state of mind onto the Tea Party. What they are really saying, as is the case with the Louisiana Republican get together, is they just have to lash out. Now that the MSM has shown them that “liberals” beating up Republicans is not news we can expect to see more of this behavior.
Whether it will be SEIU thugs stomping a black man in the street or some “environmental shouter” burning someone with whom they disagree and killing their children it will either be ignored by the MSM or will be pawned off for some hysterical reason such as global commerce, a teacher felt stressed for her collegues in New Jersey or some California government pensioner or some LaRaza hothead complaining about Arizona taking control of their border.
It is as if we must repeat the rise of Lenin with their planned riots or late Weimar Republic with the rise of the brown shirts. Street intimidation will be come an excused tactic of the left because of the over the top tea party rhetoric.
It’s called projection, and it appears to be the only mental ability most liberals have mastered.
It’s foolish for the left to continue daring the individualists.
Street intimidation will become an excused tactic no matter what the TEA Party rhetoric. Liberals are losing the argument, that’s why they’re going to turn violent. It’s up to us to not get angry, nor to try to get even. It’s up to us to win.
I’m trying to remember one single instance of a conservative or a Tea Party member or even a libertarian breaking windows, slashing tires, biting off ears, intimidating voters, or pummeling a t-shirt vendor to the ground, and I can’t come up with one. What this article about overheated rhetoric and liberal hypocracy goes out of its way not to say is that the violence is already here and it’s the lib’s who have been doing it for about ten years now. If the right decides to react, that is not because of overheated rhetoric. It’s called “self-defense”, and they started it.
Brett it is not that the left is goading individualists, it is that they are goading people, who if times are just OK will persue their livlihoods but when the alarm is sounded they will organize. The Tea Party is not inchoate. This is not Marching Season in Northern Ireland. This is not a cause of the day nor a Million (well 250,000) Man March. This is shaping up to be a game changer.
Looking across the political spectrum we are seeing a bankruptcy of the logical conclusion of the Wilsonian/Roosevelt hard left ideal. States that have caved into Union mayhem over the past 60 years, a global warming parnoia that prescribed money down a hole (ever hear a teachers union say they can do without more and more money?), now with the oil tragedy in the Gulf all I am hearing on the MSM is “there oughta be a law against those money grubbing OIL TYCOONS” playing into the childish mantra “we have to get off oil” without nary a real solution.
Our intellectual superiors of the past would not let us build nuclear power plants, drill for oil on land nor build an oil refinery through regulation after regulation after regulation. We are told that seven year olds must have sex education and that it is wrong to love the country.
Felons must have cable TV and law libraries but a conservative college student cannot be enrolled in some sensitivity major because they are not the right type of people. The Muslim Student Union can terrorize Jewish student groups but don’t call a rightous lesbian a dyke.
Now we hear the drumbeat of Tea Bagger Hate Speech!!!!
In the salons of NYC and Marin County they are all shouting hate against the right while snidely fomenting the left radicals into further violence.
Where will this end?
There has to be a stop to this nonsense. No Conservative, no true American should passively sit back and accept the premises and existence of so-called “hate crimes”.
The erroneous logic of the assumptions behind so-called “hate crimes” can be listed as follows…
1) First of all, hate is one of the normal human emotions, and is part of the full range of human emotions that makes us “human”. Are hate crime supporters seeking to squelch what it means to be human?
2) Next, one person’s hate is another person’s distaste, or yet another person’s disgust, so are proponents trying to tell others they can objectively judge any other person’s internal emotion? The only possible way anyone could do that is to have telepathy.
3) Next, the internal emotions that someone has are solely the individual responsibility of that person. For example, much as I would like to have every beautiful woman love me, I know of no way in the world to control and forcibly elicit such an emotion, or indeed any such emotion from them or anyone else. Their emotions are theirs to originate, and to control.
4) Each person is individually responsible for their own emotions, at least in a free society founded upon individual rights. I personally have enough trouble with my own emotions that I simply have no time or energy to attempt the control of others’, nor indeed should I be assumed by anyone to have such responsibility. To the extent that one person supposes another person has such power, they are simply allowing themselves and others to use intellectual and emotional indolence as an excuse to avoid their own personal responsibilities.
5) Hate crime proponents are presupposing some kind of inevitable linkage between a particular internal emotion, and an associated external act. This is wrong on two counts: (a) for one thing, because personal emotions are just that, personal, each person may or may not decide to express such an emotion, and (b) each person will with 100% probability express, if and when they do so, in a manner that is highly personal and unique to that individual.
6) Because it is the personal responsibility of each individual to manage their emotions, it is therefore especially their personal responsibility to make sure that any particular emotion is expressed, if at all, in ways that harm nobody else.
7) If they do harm somebody else, then we already have objective laws too numerous to mention, and independent of whatever emotion may have been associated with them, that make such acts illegal and are therefore eminently sufficient per se.
(8)In a free society with free speech, the assumption is that free speech means especially the right to allow expression of ideas that are disagreeable. If freedom of speech does not mean this, then it is not free speech. This means that there will also be expression of ideas with which you agree, and if you don’t hear them, you not only have a right, but a duty to express them. In this way there is a plethora of competing ideas, from which all may hear, all may judge, and all may decide to accept, reject, deny, or forget as they please. This right is the closest to absolute of those rights recognized by the Constitution and the Declaration oI as being granted to each one of us by God.
9) The legal concept of prior restraint has been adjudicated many times to be not congruent and therefore incompatible with a free society. Proponents of hate crimes come to erroneous conclusions about the expression of ideas other than their own, that do nothing other than support their politically-motivated assumptions. This ultimately amounts to a kind of disingenuous trick by which to restrain others rights, which is what they surreptitiously wanted to do in the first place. They are sanctimonious zealots of a progressive religion, and most of them feel so morally superior that they feel justified in killing all speech except theirs.
10) The whole concept of “yelling fire in a crowded theatre” is a slippery slope that has been dangerously and deliberately misrepresented by progressives, and heretofore was associated only with the dissemination of demonstrably false information about the existence or lack thereof of a real-world event (obvious without any required interpretation), thereby directly leading to an action that caused bodily harm. To a lesser extent, that same principle forms the basis of slander and libel laws. The false premise that has now been forced down our throats by evil, progressive, weak-minded courts is the further erroneous association of assumed motives and associated emotions to a hypothetical act.
Hate crimes (i.e., laws ennabling such) are for the intellectually lazy, the emotionally weak, and the politically diabolical. Such laws have absolutely no place in a free society, and any attempt to enact and/or enforce them is simply the evolutionary precursor to thought crimes, political control, and subsequent re-education camps forced by a tyrannical state (in the US we now have “anger management” classes or similar, that large businesses today enforce internally, and courts enforce externally). Every Conservative must do their utmost to forcibly oppose and eliminate laws for hate crimes. In fact, in the final analysis, there must be a law that outlaws all attempts to enact the concept of hate crimes, otherwise we have the evil of evolutionary political tyranny that is now taking place in our once free society.
Ask a lefty if he owns a gun. If the answer is no, ask why not. 9 out of 10 times you’ll see that the answer will come back something along the lines of, “I wouldn’t trust myself with a gun.”
You wonder why they project and THEN ban things and try to constantly control others. It is weakness causing a NEED to control.
Well said.
Excellent beat ! I would like to apprentice at the same time as you amend your website, how can i subscribe for a weblog site? The account aided me a appropriate deal. I had been tiny bit familiar of this your broadcast offered bright transparent idea