Jump to content

This is why America is great


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 55
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Didnt comment on that,just commented on your (once again) overstated hyperbole...aka 'standard bob post'

Such faux outrage :lol:

If you weren't "commenting" on that, then why did you quote it? What hyperbole were you commenting on? Be specific. Or were you being intentionally broad so that you could hide behind emoticons once questioned and asked to clarify?

Edited by Bob
Link to comment
Share on other sites

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Who do you think passed the Human Rights Act of 1977 that criminalized "hate speech" in order to protect people from being offended? Conservatives or the Canadian right?

And again, another leftist tries to censor speech. It's particularly disappointing considering that Irwin Cotler seems to understand security issues in Israel, yet can't grasp the importance of freedom of speech.

Edited by Bob
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you weren't "commenting" on that, then why did you quote it? What hyperbole were you commenting on? Be specific. Or were you being intentionally broad so that you could hide behind emoticons once questioned and asked to clarify?

Geez bob, need me to take your finger and trace the words?

Hows that leftist fascist thing working out for you?

:lol: <--oh wait , thats uncalled for...sorry

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who do you think passed the Human Rights Act of 1977 that criminalized "hate speech" in order to protect people from being offended?

Nobody?

There is no protection for someone who is offended. :rolleyes: <---oh wait, sorry

Nice try bob, but dont worry about Canada. We are just fine, you might want to eexpend your hyperbolic worrries where you live, you know, that country that embraces censorship.

Edited by guyser
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As usual, you just evade and refuse to actually clarify your implication. Keep hiding behind emoticons. My basic assertion remains true: freedom of speech is most vigorously protected in the USA, and that Canada should take a page out of America's playbook on this issue. Alas, the left loves censorship.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As usual, you just evade and refuse to actually clarify your implication. Keep hiding behind emoticons. My basic assertion remains true: freedom of speech is most vigorously protected in the USA, and that Canada should take a page out of America's playbook on this issue. Alas, the left loves censorship.

not just the left.. the right wants to make negative remarks about israel a hate crime

and wants foreign environmentalist groups to shut up

Link to comment
Share on other sites

not just the left.. the right wants to make negative remarks about israel a hate crime

and wants foreign environmentalist groups to shut up

Yeah? Show me some evidence of the right trying to pass legislation criminalizing anti-Israel statements. You're just making things up, now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah? Show me some evidence of the right trying to pass legislation criminalizing anti-Israel statements. You're just making things up, now.

yeah?

okay. how about the anti-boycott of israel law, in the united states?

In the United States, the Export Administration Act discourages, and in some circumstances, prohibits U.S. companies and individuals from furthering or supporting the boycott of Israel. The Department of Commerce's Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) is responsible for penalties are imposed for each "knowing" violation with fines of up to $50,000 or five times the value of the exports involved, whichever is greater, and imprisonment of up to five years.

link

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As usual, you just evade and refuse to actually clarify your implication.

No bob, just laughing at your silly assertions.

Like this...

Alas, the left loves censorship.

Did the left table bill c-51?

Who cut funding to arts and theatre to those they didnt like? (and critiqued negatively something he had never seen?)

Who cut the long form census?

Who has limited debate in parliament?

Must be the left. Dont worry about Canada bob. We are fine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

yeah?

okay. how about the anti-boycott of israel law, in the united states?

In the United States, the Export Administration Act discourages, and in some circumstances, prohibits U.S. companies and individuals from furthering or supporting the boycott of Israel. The Department of Commerce's Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) is responsible for penalties are imposed for each "knowing" violation with fines of up to $50,000 or five times the value of the exports involved, whichever is greater, and imprisonment of up to five years.

link

You're gonna need to do better than that. For once in your life, would you actually invest more time than simply a thirty-second Google search? Show me the language of the law(s) in question, then show me how these laws were advanced by the right of America.

Ah, don't even bother. After a brief review of the page, it's clear that it has nothing to do with freedom of speech. So, as is typical of your posting on MLW, it's irrelevant.

Edited by Bob
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No bob, just laughing at your silly assertions.

Like this...

Did the left table bill c-51?

Who cut funding to arts and theatre to those they didnt like? (and critiqued negatively something he had never seen?)

Who cut the long form census?

Who has limited debate in parliament?

Must be the left. Dont worry about Canada bob. We are fine.

Cutting public funds to the arts doesn't constitute censorship. Nice job parroting the lies of the loser left artists who can't cut in the free market and depend on taxpayer handouts to sustain their "art".

The long-form census also has nothing to do with freedom of speech.

"Limits debate in parliament"? You're gonna need to clarify that. Is this another reference to the proroguing?

As usual, you deflect onto irrelevant tangents and refuse to provide examples of the right advancing an agenda of criminalizing certain types of speech. It's the left that supports "hate speech" laws, not the right.

Edited by Bob
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Getting pepper sprayed at some "protest" on a university campus doesn't constitute a restriction of freedom speech. As far as the OWS arrests are concerned, it was another example of police officers not doing their jobs - likely because they were handcuffed (metaphorically) by the leftist political establishment that prevented them from enforcing the law. Consider that these "occupy" losers were allowed to engage in long-term vagrancy in public areas, cases in point Toronto and Vancouver. The "occupy" losers were treated with kids gloves.

You gotta love those edited two-minute clips that provide no context, whatsoever. That isn't an oversight, it's by design - to mislead the viewer into thinking that the police were overzealous (yeah, right) in their conduct. One is left to believe that it's as if these "occupy losers weren't recording everything for hours. What preceded those engagements with the police? Unfortunately for you, I'm not some idiot leftist incapable of thought.

Edited by Bob
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I should have a right to offend you. Being offended should not result in a repression of my free speech.

I totally agree 100%. People get way too offended these days. They are just words. Sticks and stones...

When did we become such babies? My feelings are hurt waaaaaah!! Whatever happened to just ignoring people? Maybe it has to do with people now growing up with fewer siblings. Nothing will toughen you up against name-calling than a few siblings teasing the heck out of you since birth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I totally agree 100%. People get way too offended these days. They are just words. Sticks and stones...

When did we become such babies? My feelings are hurt waaaaaah!! Whatever happened to just ignoring people? Maybe it has to do with people now growing up with fewer siblings. Nothing will toughen you up against name-calling than a few siblings teasing the heck out of you since birth.

How is this hard to understand? The forces behind censorship are clear: it's the left and their worldview of deference to authority, as they believe in centralization of control. That's what's behind the constant attacks on freedom of speech and the laws that have been past in liberal democracies that curb "offensive" speech as deemed by the elite political establishment. The left believes that the masses need large degrees of management from government, as they fear the other side of freedom - the dirty word known as responsibility.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I totally agree 100%. People get way too offended these days. They are just words. Sticks and stones...

Why?

I have no right to offend you, there is no right enumerated anywhere.

OTOH , Being offended doesnt give anyone the right to quell the offensive speech unless it crosses the harm threshhold

Edited by guyser
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why?

I have no right to offend you, there is no right enumerated anywhere.

OTOH , Being offended doesnt give anyone the right to quell the offensive speech unless it crosses the harm threshhold

It's not about the "right to offend", is it? It's pretty clear that he's talking about the right to freedom of expression. It's pretty obvious that you don't even grasp the crux of this issue.

What in the world is the "harm threshold"?

Edited by Bob
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You deny the USA's laws on free speech are superior to Canada's? In what respect

Shit Trudeau took issue with calling honor killings (I think ) barbaric!

Human rights tribunals charge those that deal with Muslims, gays, Jews, things that free speech allows in the USA to their credit.

Canada's hate speech is a restriction of free speech (qualifier), unless violence is suggested.

Either we have rights to our beliefs, convictions and opinions and the opportunity to openly express them, or we have no free speech.

I should have a right to offend you. Being offended should not result in a repression of my free speech.

If I question the number murdered by Hitler, the Holocaust number murdered the terrorism in Islamist Muslim that certainly should not be restricted speech.

It's not about the "right to offend", it's about the right to freedom of expression, even if certain persons will be offended. The left, of course, wants to play babysitter and regulate what can and cannot be said, lest some people be offended. It's really sick and perverted, and it's unfortunately widespread. As I've stated, the only free country in this world that really enshrines true freedom of speech is America. Canada and the rest of the Anglosphere have all implemented "hate speech" laws to satisfy their leftist ideological leanings of centralized management and social engineering.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How is this hard to understand? The forces behind censorship are clear: it's the left and their worldview of deference to authority, as they believe in centralization of control. That's what's behind the constant attacks on freedom of speech and the laws that have been past in liberal democracies that curb "offensive" speech as deemed by the elite political establishment. The left believes that the masses need large degrees of management from government, as they fear the other side of freedom - the dirty word known as responsibility.

Cue my inner Shady-ness here, complete and utter hogwash.

G20 stifling of free speech was organized by the left?

The lying about some old act on the books was orchestrated by the left?

The suppression of free speech at the RNC convention in 2004 was orchestrated by the left??

Tell me again, what was that about ignorance?

Tell ya what, all good=right, all bad =left. It is your standard MO and consistently pathetic, which I grant is admirable , or thick headed (your call) but denies the truth at all costs.

So tell us, what have you done in the face of egregious censorship where you live, what have you done about it?

Dont worry about Canada bob. We are fine.

Edited by guyser
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As expected, you still cannot provide any examples of attempts from the right to suppress freedom of speech through legislation. Keep digging.

good grief , now your muddled mind thinks I was ever asked to supply such.

Keep it together bob, ...you said 'Although preservation of that freedom is a never-ending battle as leftists continue to assault that right.'

I show you how totally inaccurate that is.

So, just to help you out a bit, you know, to be pre-emptive . Shall I move the goalposts to the right, back, left or maybe move them way over --------> there ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your definition of censorship would include a conservative website editing an op-ed that it found too liberal. It was clear that I was talking about the legal foundations of freedom of speech, as my earliest posts in this threat indicated that I was talking about America demonstrating the broadest protections of this right anywhere to be found in the world. What did you interpret "protections" to mean aside from legal provisions? The goal posts were clear set by me as soon as I entered this thread. You are the one who intentionally assumed that the goal posts were ten thousand kilometres apart so that you could insert absurd examples of "censorship". It's funny, really. You lose. Again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your definition of censorship would include a conservative website editing an op-ed that it found too liberal.

Do tell me how to think will you? :lol:

Such arrogance born of ignorance. Enjoy it.

It was clear that I was talking about the legal foundations of freedom of speech,

Clear as ...well mud.

as my earliest posts in this threat indicated that I was talking about America demonstrating the broadest protections of this right anywhere to be found in the world. What did you interpret "protections" to mean aside from legal provisions? The goal posts were clear set by me as soon as I entered this thread. You are the one who intentionally assumed that the goal posts were ten thousand kilometres apart so that you could insert absurd examples of "censorship". It's funny, really. You lose. Again.

Swing.....and another miss.

Any example is absurd, even though it blows holes in your posts? LOL...oh wait... :lol:

Little note, when one decides he won....well....its generally considered the opposite. But ok, if you say so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,712
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    nyralucas
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Jeary earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Gaétan earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Dictatords earned a badge
      First Post
    • babetteteets earned a badge
      One Year In
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...