Peaceful union protestors.

A few examples of well behaved union "workers"

Here is a very intelligent union worker discussing the finer points of tea party hatred.

Or how about this fine gentleman politely asking a young girl not to video him.

Or how about this fine example of peace and love.

Or these wonderful union workers politely showing this evil gay black teaparty monster where to stand.

And finally, a duly elected member of congress reasonably encouraging his union friends to show support for there brothers and sisters.

And this is just a small handful of recent examples of how these wonderful union workers behave. I guess we should all be ashamed of ourselves for not wanting to pay for there meager benefits. Ashamed indeed.

No votes yet

Audio is pretty bad; you need a lip reader to interpret most of it.

Excuse me, but I thought Americans were guaranteed the right to free speech. And the f-bombs fall like rain on this board. I can think of one hard-right-leaning member who has one of the foulest mouths I've ever heard.

The most famous fallacy in the logic field-the "you do it too"defense. "the republicans' do it too", "the White people do it too", "the rich people do it too"----yada, yada, yada, AD NAUSEUM!

Come on, now. If you want to discuss the topic, please challenge my response intelligently. Argue the point that we have the right to free speech.

Free speech not assult

"DTOM" {1776} " We The People" {1791}

Lilypad, I don't seem to recall you jumping up in defense of tea party demonstrators when the local libtards made accusations about hate speech at there rallies. And besides, I never said one word about shutting down ther so-called freedom of speech, just pointing out what a bunch of idiot low life thugs these people are, in there own words and by there own actions. And correct me if I'm wrong, but the last time I checked, physical assault does not fall under speech. Not to mention inciting violence, which is actually ILLEGAL, and here we have an elected member of congress doing just that. It's absolutely sickening.
Also, the first ammendment does not gaurantee anyone the freedom of speech. It is there to prevent the CONGRESS from writing federal laws designed to stifle peoples abilty to address there elected representatives, nothing more, nothing less. I do not have the ability to violate ANYONES right to speak freely, as I am NOT a member of congress.

The fruits of MY labor are not a social commodity.

I don't have any knowledge of the rallies you're talking about; but, if they included legally defined hate speech there is no Constitutional protection. You're correct about the physical assault. The victim could, and may have, filed charges. We don't know. As for your charge that the congressman was inciting violence, allow me to suggest that you interpret things too literally and do not recognize figurative speech, also known as metaphor. Also, the scope of the Bill of Rights has changed considerably over the last 200+ years. You might want to check out the 14th Amendment as well as relevant Supreme Court cases.

Finally, please learn the correct usage of the words there, their, and they're. Trust me on this one; people posting in Internet forums, and the credibility of their opinions, are judged in part based upon their ability to demonstrate a grasp of written language.

?

Freedom of speech in the 14th ammendment? Really? Maybe YOU should go and do some reading. There is nothing about freedom of speech in the 14th, at least that I can find. If it's there, please point it out.
I love how it's ok to speak "metaphorically" about hittin the streets and gettin bloody if your a good liberal Democrat, but if anyone who is on the other side of the fence does this, it's considered dirty hate speech. Hypocracy does reign supreme after all.
Oh, and please please please forgive me for making the dreaded there, their typo, I didn't mean it. Really I didn't. I guess realizing that EVERYONE makes mistakes sometimes, I really don't pay too much attention to proper spelling every time I read a post, and I certainly don't denigrate the person doing it. It's nothing more than a cheap diversionary tactic employed by those who have no legitimate argument.

The fruits of MY labor are not a social commodity.

As far as the 14th, I think your problem isn't reading, but understanding what you read.

Spelling and typos, my ass. It's called grammar, and you used the incorrect word several times. That's no mistake. You should also check into "your a good liberal" versus "you're a good liberal." Don't blame me for your mistakes, I paid attention in school; obviously, you didn't.

Ignorance is forgivable, stupidity is not. How do you plead?

Loughner was a libtard grammar Nazi too....

“Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.”

I asked you to show me where in the 14th it talks about freedom of speech, and instead you respond by arguing about meaningless grammatical errors and lodging a personal assault on my intelligence, only to prove my earlier point.
So who is the stupid one?

Anyway, I'll make it easy for you.
Here is the 14th ammendment IN IT'S ENTIRETY. So please genius, point to the part about freedom of speech. I make sure to hold my breath while I wait.

AMENDMENT XIV
Passed by Congress June 13, 1866. Ratified July 9, 1868.

Note: Article I, section 2, of the Constitution was modified by section 2 of the 14th amendment.

Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 2.
Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age,* and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Section 3.
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4.
The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5.
The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

The fruits of MY labor are not a social commodity.

Why am I not surprised?

The fruits of MY labor are not a social commodity.

"Also, the first ammendment does not gaurantee anyone the freedom of speech. It is there to prevent the CONGRESS from writing federal laws designed to stifle peoples abilty to address there elected representatives, nothing more, nothing less."

What I said about the Bill of Rights and the 14th Amendment was meant only to point out that your above statement was true only prior to the 1890s. Because of the Incorporation Doctrine, most provisions of the Bill of Rights now apply to state and local governments as well by virtue of the due process clause of the 14th Amendment. It is no longer limited to Congress. I should have been clearer regarding the part of your post I was responding to and provided more information. My apologies.

if we follow your line of thinking in regards to the congressman who urged protesters "to get a little bloody" as merely figurative speech or metaphor. Would it then be reasonable to assume you wouldn't have any problems with a political figure whose political action committee uses cross-hairs to identify vulnerable congressional districts?

On a somewhat related note, you really may just be the worst kind of liberal. The faux-elitist, nanny-state type who always feels the need to "educate" everyone. Labeling those who disagree with you as unintelligent or dismissing their opinions because some words happen to be misspelled.

You assume correctly. I don't have a problem with the cross-hairs that some blame for the shooting of Congresswoman Giffords.

"...dismissing their opinions because some words happen to be misspelled."

I stated explicitly these were grammatical errors, not spelling. Thanks for proving you either don't comprehend what you read or have deliberately misinterpreted my statement to make a point.

Yes, I guess I'm the worst kind of "faux-elitist, nanny-state type" liberal. I believe education is actually a good thing; most liberals do.

it was just an honest mistake on my end. But since you brought it up, should I also thank you for either not comprehending what you read or deliberately misinterpreting what I said to make a point? Because I'm fairly certain I never said education was a bad thing.

Yeah, we're playing games. But sometimes the stuff you guys say leaves the door wide open and I can't resist a few laughs. I do, however, believe a nanny state is preferable to a ninny state. (Oops, sorry, I promise to play nicer in the future.)

What you want isnt education...it's more indoctrination....

Educated people think for themselves...indoctrinated people on the other hand......become good liberals....

“Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.”

I had no problem hearing all the vile, disgusting language.

toledojim

Libtards only hear what they want to hear. It's called selective hearing disorder. If something doesn't fall in line with their "thought" process, they just choose not to hear it.

The fruits of MY labor are not a social commodity.

lol

At lease code pink didn't want to hang a black man in any of these videos.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.