[quote=“doorhinge, post:50, topic:756390”]
Are you actually advocating for the violence of Mexican nationalists, and the anti-free speech thugs?
It appears that the anti-America/anti-free speech mob was very busy. Mexican flags seem to be very popular.
No. My post was sarcasm. I’m pretty consistent with tolerance of free speech and press.
An e-stalker? Point on the doll where the mean octopus touched you.
This thread is not about me, btw, I know it’s hard to stay on topic. It’s about people who get aggressive and violent when people exercise free speech and how that’s wrong. Not like you have the iq to grasp why the protection of fundamental rights, even rights exercised in an offensive manner, are important to a free society. You are so retarded, which is ironic, that you think advocating for a particular right is identical to the content of a specific expression of that right.
Morally wrong is reason enough. But you do bring up what I’ve been warning the left about. Backlash. Eventually the right is going to respond with violence and then this gets real ugly real fast. Or the right doesn’t and political violence is seen as the tool of the far, radical, left and the desire for law and order politicians grows. Either way this violence is counterproductive as well as immoral. You are correct.
It is not “exercising free speech” to make incendiary and abusive accusations about some ethnic minority. That is abusing free speech, its turning out Lady Liberty and putting her on the streets for a common whore.
Are you able to objectively define the terms ‘incendiary’ and ‘abusive’?
The sarcasm of the OP wouldn’t be obvious if you weren’t already familiar with the poster. We also have two threads in the pit that amount to link battle/pile-ones. Those two being the stupid gun news and controversial encounters with law enforcement the latter of which you started. A good number of posts in those thread have rather subjective narratives with a decidedly left of center bias.Doorhinge posting links of the regressive left is par for the course.
Even the title of the OP is sarcastic. It is an attempt to insinuate that whenever anyone says something like “free speech has consequences”, they are condoning the ultimate consequence which is violence. Far from it. The phrase almost always means “of course you have free speech: stop responding to our criticism by saying you have free speech. We are also free to use our speech to say you’re a big doodoohead, or, horror of horrors, as private citizens use our pocketbook to disassociate ourselves from your contemptible views. If we do, that is not impinging on your right to free speech.”
It’s relative and it depends on the context. If blue collar neighbors show up at a 4th of July barbecue and talk about how America has too many immigrants over a few Budweisers, that’s one thing. Depending on what’s said, it might still be repugnant but it’s not disruptive. But when it’s a presidential candidate, one of two left in the race, who makes remarks to that effect and suggests that he might take action that harms communities who haven’t the power to fight back, that’s another matter altogether. It’s legally protected speech, but it’s also necessarily emotionally inflammatory for reasons that really need no explanation and as such, it’s irresponsible.
Pretty much. But I don’t really thing clarification was Tithonus’ goal, but an invitation to engage semantic nitpickery, the kind of thing that leads otherwise sensible people to post definitions from dictionaries as though that proved something.
I hate that more than licorice.
(Emphasis mine)
Well now you’re just being redundant.
Nonsense; she’s a high-class whore. She put out for the railroads and banks in the Robber Baron age, and she put out for the tobacco and oil companies in the Reagan era. She doesn’t have to turn tricks for us peons; she’s in bed with the Hedge Funds and Big Pharma.
I’m not sure who the shitlord is, but that is a goddamn funny word!
This is what happens when you take your cues on liberty from some watery tart with a torch.
Don’t have much taste, either, “send me your raggedy-ass mofos from everywhere!”
Hahahaha. Watching you attempting to advocate for the violence of Mexican nationalists and the anti-free speech thugs is a joy to behold. You must believe that violence is the answer.
Punching people and hitting them with backpacks may have hurt more.
Did you notice the Mexican flags that were prominently displayed by the violent thugs and those threatening violence in the videos? I hope Californian voters took notice.
Can we assume Californians will, or will not, be intimidated by the threat of future violence from the Mexican nationalists and the anti-free speech thugs if the Californian voters do not chose to vote the way the Mexican nationalists and the anti-free speech thugs demand that they do?
(post shortened)
Hahahaha. Have I managed to hurt your feelings? Again? Your life must really suck. 
California has already ruled that in the case of a school setting, banning wearing the American Flag can be prohibited while allowing the Mexican flag. Because apparently the American flag would incite violence.
:rolleyes:
File that under “why can *they *say nigger but I can’t ? abloobloobloo”
I’m not sure where you get the impressions that my feelings are hurt. For someone to hurt my feelings, i have to care about and have some respect for what they say. Believe me, you don’t qualify on either count. You’re a shit-flinging monkey, nothing more.