Free Speech Thread

[SoCal]

Now college students are signing petitions to ban "White Christmas" from being played because of ............RACISM.




I used to think college was where young people went to become smart adults. Turns out I was wrong. It turns them in f---ing stupid facists!

[AntiArbitrator]

I find it hard to believe the students signed that petition. WTH! 

[TheFlashFan]

the ones who sign are the true dummys of this world.

[SoCal]

[SoCal]

For crap's sake: Hillary Clinton does not have BLUE eyes. She has BROWNeyes, but for some reason wears blue contacts that are designed to hide the brown and make her look blue-eyed. WHAT THE HELL FOR? Does she think having blue eyes makes her look......more winsome? What if a male candidate wore color changing lenses? Wouldn't every single news reporter be asking him why? Why does the Hil-monster get a pass?

She also does not have blond hair. Her true color is brown. Of course at her advanced age (68?) it's more likely grey, but it certainly isn't blond.

Ask yourself this question: Why does Hillary Clinton want to imitate a blue-eyed, blond woman?

[AntiArbitrator]

So men will be smitten and vote for her.

[SoCal]

I just want to know why she is pretending to be something (blond haired, blue eyed) she clearly isn't?

Shouldn't that be a warning to people who want to vote for her? Just what will she change into if she's elected? Blech.....just printing that made me puke a little.

[SoCal]

Dutch police are teaching eagles to snatch drones out of the sky

[KyleEl]

Jan 27, 2016 18:04:08 GMT -5 AntiArbitrator said:

So men will be smitten and vote for her.

At her age? How old are these men?

Now Sarah Palin is another matter entirely but she's a bubblehead.

[SoCal]

[SoCal]

This proves that there needs to be an intelligence test before anyone can vote.

[AntiArbitrator]

Feb 1, 2016 15:57:15 GMT -5 KyleEl said:

Jan 27, 2016 18:04:08 GMT -5 AntiArbitrator said:

So men will be smitten and vote for her.

At her age? How old are these men?

Shaking my head at this archaic attitude.

Now Sarah Palin is another matter entirely but she's a bubblehead.

Shaking my head even harder.

[AntiArbitrator]

Feb 3, 2016 15:26:46 GMT -5 SoCal said:

This proves that there needs to be an intelligence test before anyone can vote.

I was seriously waiting for at least one person to ask if the Marx was a descendant of the philosopher. They did not question if Hillary has communist views or anything else. It would be hilarious if it was not so embarrassing. The host was really amused though.

[Aeryn]

Feb 4, 2016 19:02:02 GMT -5 AntiArbitrator said:

Feb 1, 2016 15:57:15 GMT -5 KyleEl said:

At her age? How old are these men?

Shaking my head at this archaic attitude.

Now Sarah Palin is another matter entirely but she's a bubblehead.

Shaking my head even harder.

Wow. This just isn't Kyle's year, is it?

Then again, Anti has gotten pretty gangsta since Moon disappeared.

[AntiArbitrator]

Feb 4, 2016 19:21:05 GMT -5 Aeryn said:

Wow. This just isn't Kyle's year, is it?

Then again, Anti has gotten pretty gangsta since Moon disappeared.

It just seems that way, but I spent so much time guns blazing and gangsta rapping on the Island, I was depleted by the time I visited the civilized folks on the forum.

[SoCal]

[SoCal]

[SoCal]

By David Harsanyi
February 15, 2016




Although nothing in his political history suggests magnanimity, Barack Obama may surprise us by nominating one of those moderate-consensus types who would provide some of that national healing he promised us eight years ago. But he’s certainly under no constitutional obligation to do so. He can nominate whomever he pleases in the wake of the vacancy left by Antonin Scalia. And Republicans have plenty of precedent for rejecting his choice.

They, just like Sen. Obama, can hold nominees responsible for their philosophical positions and records. Sen. Obama unconditionally rejected every George W. Bush nomination to the SCOTUS out of hand because of their ideology. Here he is arguing for the Senate Democrats to filibuster the nomination of Justice Alito:

I disagree with this view. I believe firmly that the Constitution calls for the Senate to advise and consent. I believe that it calls for meaningful advice and consent that includes an examination of a judge’s philosophy, ideology, and record. And when I examine the philosophy, ideology, and record of Samuel Alito, I’m deeply troubled.

You’ll notice, as well, that precedent only matters sporadically. Democrats were uninterested in historical guidance when they were shoehorning a massive generational reform through Congress without any consensus for the first time in history or filling imaginary recess appointments. When it works out for them they transform into strict traditionalists.

Whatever precedent says, if Republicans truly believe Obama has displayed a contempt for the Constitution, they have a moral obligation to reject his choice—whether it’s someone who argues in favor of book banning or enables abusive power. Because we’re not talking about good-faith disagreements over what the Constitution says anymore, we’re talking about a party that believes enumerated powers stand in their way.

Contemporary liberalism is fundamentally opposed to any precedential restrictions that curb “progress.” Wilsonian progressives were skeptical of the Constitution and separation of powers, and so are modern progressives. Only the former had the decency to be honest. So why do we pretend otherwise?

Just like Wilson, Democrats argue that the Supreme Court is holding back many morally advantageous policies. What they do not do, and haven’t done for years, is offer any limiting principles (other than for few incidental partisan policies they happen to support for reasons have nothing to do with individual liberty). For them, process exists solely to further ethical policy (which they don’t believe could possibly be subjective).

Even Donald Trump, who claims to believe America is limping towards extinction, felt the need during the last debateto claimed he would build consensus when applying trade and immigration policy rather than act unilaterally. There is no such inclination, not even rhetorically, on the Left. Just listen to the Democratic Party debates. Bernie Sanders’ litmus test for a Supreme Court nomination is pretty simple: the candidate must support restrictions on the First Amendment. Most Democrats agree.

Hillary Clinton, whom I don’t remember mentioning the Constitution once in any of her debates, claims that “Republicans in Senate and on campaign trail who are calling for Scalia’s seat to remain vacant dishonor our Constitution.” Harry Reid, who couldn’t are one whit about precedent when he blew up a vital check on majoritanarism and executive power by eliminating filibuster on judicial nominations, said: “Failing to fill this vacancy would be a shameful abdication of one of the Senate’s most essential Constitutional responsibilities.” And Elizabeth Warren says she “can’t find a clause in the Constitution that says ‘except when there’s a year left in the term of a Democratic president.’”
Bernie Sanders’ litmus test for a Supreme Court nomination is pretty simple: the candidate must support restrictions on the First Amendment.

That’s great, because no one is contending Obama can’t send a nomination. They argue (or should) that Republicans can reject the nominee. Unless, of course, the former constitutional professor nominates some kind of Madisonian to keep a tenuous check on state power and curb the reach of the bureaucratic state.

For years Democrats have argued that the president should work around Congress due to the legislative branch’s supposedly deep-rooted obstinacy. As if there was an asterisk somewhere in the Constitution that says “…unless Republicans are being jerks about it.” The president has made this extraconstitutional case the centerpiece of campaigns, and his admirers have heartily cheered the idea. Not only has he changed the conversation, which might be expected, but Democratic Party leaders in the legislative branch have implored him to take power from them, undermining a vital tenet of governance for partisanship. This is the time for Republicans to reinstate some checks and balances, however fleeting it might be.

As Charles Cooke points out at National Review, stopping the nomination will require some heavy lifting. It may not even matter after next election. Not if Trump continues to do what he’s doing—win or lose. But Republicans will have to make the case that a nominee should not only be qualified, but ideologically qualified. They will have to argue that a lame duck president should not be empowered to change the composition of the Supreme Court. After all, Republicans won both Houses making an argument against Obama’s overeach.

Voters seem less inclined to be moved by idealistic arguments these days, so Republicans may suffer the short-term consequences. But if conservatives truly believe their rhetoric on constitutional values—all that stuff about the First and Second Amendments, about religious freedom and checks and balances—this might be the most worthwhile battle they’ve faced. Without some kind of curb on this accelerating dynamic, there’s little doubt we’re headed for post-constitutional governance.


David Harsanyi is a Senior Editor at The Federalist.

[SoCal]

[SoCal]

No more free speech at Twitter.





Adam Baldwin Quits Twitter Over its Locking Down of Conservative Accounts
"They’re so afraid to hear people disagree with them."
2.22.2016
News
Mark Tapson
116
22656

Twitter is a cesspool of hate, ugliness, illiteracy, stupidity, and vile personal attacks. Through its newly-appointed Trust and Safety Commission, designed to create a "safe space" online for Twitterers, the social media platform has begun locking down accounts that the leftist commission deems offensive - beginning with conservatives.

Actor Adam Baldwin is a prominent presence on Twitter and arguably the most fair-minded and polite person you could ever engage in a political discussion on a site normally characterized by mean-spirited sniping. So naturally the Orwellian-named Trust and Safety Commission locked down his account without explanation. Baldwin, who had nearly 230,000 followers on the site, told IJReview that he was quitting Twitter for good:

“It’s really a shame that so-called ‘liberal thinkers’ and the so called ‘tolerant crowd’ is intolerant of varying viewpoints. They’re so afraid to hear people disagree with them. Instead of ignoring it or providing their own arguments in return, they say “shut up!”

“I’ve had enough. Twitter is dead to me,” Baldwin continued. “I’m going to find greener pastures elsewhere and I’m not coming back.”

“This group-think, Orwellian, so-called Safety Council is really killing the wild west of ideas that Twitter was,” Baldwin laments:

“That’s what made Twitter fun. You could run across all sorts of differing viewpoints. That is what free speech is all about. As long as you’re not threatening people with violence, have at it.”

Baldwin cites the banning of prominent conservative tweeter Robert Stacy McCain as a major reason for leaving and points to a recent article by The Federalist for an explanation of the situation:

On Friday, Twitter suspended the account of Robert Stacy McCain, a conservative blogger and dogged critic of feminism, apparently without warning or explanation. This has led, in true Twitter fashion, to protests under the hashtag #FreeStacy.

Only a few weeks earlier, Twitter had announced the creation of a “Trust and Safety Council,” to which it appointed Anita Sarkeesian, a feminist known for denouncing “sexism” in video games, a prominent figure in the Gamergate controversy—and oh yes, a frequent target of criticism from McCain. So it sure looks like the moment Twitter gave Sarkeesian the power to do so, she started blackballing her critics.

Baldwin tells us Sarkeesian’s role in the new Safety council directly affected his decision.

Baldwin and McCain aren't the only prominent conservative targets. Breitbart writer and self-described "alpha-homo" Milo Yiannopoulos lost his Twitter verification earlier this year. He explained in an interview that Twitter had effectively “privileged progressive opinions over mine and reduced my power and influence in the marketplace. That’s a real thing and they’ve done it on a whim, for political reasons, while refusing to explain why.”

As social media giants like Facebook and Twitter get more blatant in their progressive bias, watch both companies begin to ossify and die.

[SoCal]

Cheese and crackers, what an incredible moron. And he could have been president!


When Confronted About Gitmo Detainee Who Returned to Terrorism, Kerry Says 'He's Not Supposed to Be Doing That'
Leah Barkoukis | Feb 25, 2016

[KyleEl]

I don't know if this fits, but less than a week after Scalia died, a voice speaking for Dr. Carson was on my former favorite radio station praising the man and, of yes, reminding us to vote for Carson if we supported Scalia's values. Which I never did.

[SoCal]

[SoCal]

[SoCal]

[SoCal]

[SoCal]

[SoCal]

[KyleEl]

I voted for O'Malley Tuesday because the Democrats don't have any candidates worth voting for.

I wanted to vote for Kasich but I can't do it until November and the chances that I will be able to aren't looking good. I was even going to consider Rubio.

One particular Cruz commercial has been running where I live, and I think it's safe to say if I don't stand for the things he does, I can't support him.

[AntiArbitrator]

When O'Malley was running for Governor of Maryland, I voted for him.

Also, I was so proud of Dr. Ben Carson and he was our Golden Child and gave Marylanders bragging rights. On the campaign trail, he seems to be either drugged or something is wrong with his brain to mouth filter. 

In defense of Marylanders who support Carson, here is a 2-minute video clip of the Carson we know and love.