gatomontes99 Posted February 17 Report Posted February 17 Most Trusted Name In News Quote CBS host blasted for 'bonkers' claim that Nazi Germany 'weaponized' free speech "Well, he was standing in a country where free speech was weaponized to conduct a genocide," Brennan replied. "He met with the head of a political party that has far-right views and some historic ties to extreme groups. The context of that was changing the tone of it. And you know that." I would say this is batshit crazy and that she is expressing an extreme view, but in her circles this is normal. In fact, she uses most of my debate rules for liberals. She's angry. She's trying to blame/smear Trump. She's also running from the topic. 1 Quote The Rules for Liberal tactics: If they can't refute the content, attack the source. If they can't refute the content, attack the poster. If 1 and 2 fail, pretend it never happened. Everyone you disagree with is Hitler. A word is defined by the emotion it elicits and not the actual definition. If they are wrong, blame the opponent. If a liberal policy didn't work, it's a conservatives fault and vice versa. If all else fails, just be angry.
Deluge Posted February 17 Report Posted February 17 19 minutes ago, gatomontes99 said: Most Trusted Name In News I would say this is batshit crazy and that she is expressing an extreme view, but in her circles this is normal. In fact, she uses most of my debate rules for liberals. She's angry. She's trying to blame/smear Trump. She's also running from the topic. Leftoids want control of everything, including speech. Quote
robosmith Posted February 17 Report Posted February 17 5 hours ago, gatomontes99 said: Most Trusted Name In News I would say this is batshit crazy and that she is expressing an extreme view, but in her circles this is normal. In fact, she uses most of my debate rules for liberals. She's angry. She's trying to blame/smear Trump. She's also running from the topic. Are you trying to claim that Nazi leaders, including Hitler, didn't have free speech and didn't use it to foment hate against the Jews? LMAO If so, you're the one who is "batshit crazy." 1 Quote
West Posted February 17 Report Posted February 17 Democrats are vile 1 minute ago, robosmith said: Are you trying to claim that Nazi leaders, including Hitler, didn't have free speech and didn't use it to foment hate against the Jews? LMAO If so, you're the one who is "batshit crazy." Now the left is trying to stifle free speech while they abuse the institutions and people's human rights. They are scum Quote
robosmith Posted February 17 Report Posted February 17 33 minutes ago, West said: Democrats are vile Now the left is trying to stifle free speech while they abuse the institutions and people's human rights. They are scum Inciting violence against others is NOT part of "free speech." In fact it is VERY COSTLY. DUH Quote
West Posted February 18 Report Posted February 18 1 hour ago, robosmith said: Inciting violence against others is NOT part of "free speech." In fact it is VERY COSTLY. DUH Democrats incited three assassination attempts and multiple church burnings as well as the burnings of major Metropolitan areas. Quote
CouchPotato Posted February 18 Report Posted February 18 Free speech is a threat to our democracy. Quote
robosmith Posted February 18 Report Posted February 18 16 minutes ago, West said: Democrats incited three assassination attempts and multiple church burnings as well as the burnings of major Metropolitan areas. Prove it. You're wrong so often, just claiming ^this means nothing. Just cause you heard it on FOS LIES, does not make it true. Quote
gatomontes99 Posted February 18 Author Report Posted February 18 2 hours ago, robosmith said: Are you trying to claim that Nazi leaders, including Hitler, didn't have free speech and didn't use it to foment hate against the Jews? LMAO If so, you're the one who is "batshit crazy." Wow. Just wow. Did you not take history in school or was it utterly and embarrassingly woeful? Because the rise of Nazi power occurred under the same vein of censorship that Germany, the EU and American liberals endorse: Would censorship have stopped the rise of the Nazis? Weimar Germany had laws banning hateful speech (particularly hateful speech directed at Jews), and top Nazis including Joseph Goebbels, Theodor Fritsch and Julius Streicher actually were sentenced to prison time for violating them. The efforts of the Weimar Republic to suppress the speech of the Nazis are so well known in academic circles that one professor has described the idea that speech restrictions would have stopped the Nazis as “the Weimar Fallacy.” A 1922 law passed in response to violent political agitators such as the Nazis permitted Weimar authorities to censor press criticism of the government and advocacy of violence. This was followed by a number of emergency decrees expanding the power to censor newspapers. The Weimar Republic not only shut down hundreds of Nazi newspapers — in a two-year period, they shut down 99 in Prussia alone — but they accelerated that crackdown on speech as the Nazis ascended to power. Hitler himself was banned from speaking in several German states from 1925 until 1927. Far from being an impediment to the spread of National Socialist ideology, Hitler and the Nazis used the attempts to suppress their speech as public relations coups. The party waved the ban like a bloody shirt to claim they were being targeted for exposing the international conspiracy to suppress “true” Germans. 2 Quote The Rules for Liberal tactics: If they can't refute the content, attack the source. If they can't refute the content, attack the poster. If 1 and 2 fail, pretend it never happened. Everyone you disagree with is Hitler. A word is defined by the emotion it elicits and not the actual definition. If they are wrong, blame the opponent. If a liberal policy didn't work, it's a conservatives fault and vice versa. If all else fails, just be angry.
CdnFox Posted February 18 Report Posted February 18 11 hours ago, gatomontes99 said: Most Trusted Name In News I would say this is batshit crazy and that she is expressing an extreme view, but in her circles this is normal. In fact, she uses most of my debate rules for liberals. She's angry. She's trying to blame/smear Trump. She's also running from the topic. Oh CBS has batshit crazy reporters who spoke radical nonsense that has no basis in fact but supports an ideology. Hold on, I have to run and grab my pills before the sudden shock inspired heart attack sets in. Quote There are two types of people in this world: Those who can extrapolate from incomplete data
robosmith Posted February 18 Report Posted February 18 3 hours ago, CouchPotato said: Free speech is a threat to our democracy. Yes it is, when that free speech incites lDIOTS to attack their fellow citizens with IMPUNITY like Trump's did. Quote
CouchPotato Posted February 18 Report Posted February 18 9 minutes ago, robosmith said: Yes it is, when that free speech incites lDIOTS to attack their fellow citizens with IMPUNITY like Trump's did. Clearly we can't have people encouraging others to march peacefully and patriotically. Quote
gatomontes99 Posted February 18 Author Report Posted February 18 27 minutes ago, robosmith said: Yes it is, when that free speech incites lDIOTS to attack their fellow citizens with IMPUNITY like Trump's did. You mean Obama, right? Or maybe you meant Biden? Both men fanned those flames. I don't see you holding them accountable. Why not? 42 minutes ago, robosmith said: Yes it is, when that free speech incites lDIOTS to attack their fellow citizens with IMPUNITY like Trump's did. Notice how these guys actually defend the indefensible. It reminds me of how the death panels talking point got so much traction that libs started saying they didn't want to love past 75 any way. It's absurd what they will say to try and gain power. Quote The Rules for Liberal tactics: If they can't refute the content, attack the source. If they can't refute the content, attack the poster. If 1 and 2 fail, pretend it never happened. Everyone you disagree with is Hitler. A word is defined by the emotion it elicits and not the actual definition. If they are wrong, blame the opponent. If a liberal policy didn't work, it's a conservatives fault and vice versa. If all else fails, just be angry.
robosmith Posted February 18 Report Posted February 18 58 minutes ago, CouchPotato said: Clearly we can't have people encouraging others to march peacefully and patriotically. Clearly we can't have people inciting violent attacks with DOUBLE TALK that others can naively use to excuse their violent intent. Of course we know what Trump wanted done by the FACT that he pardoned his goons for their crimes. Quote
CdnFox Posted February 18 Report Posted February 18 2 minutes ago, robosmith said: Clearly we can't have people inciting violent attacks with DOUBLE TALK that others can naively use to excuse their violent intent. You mean the George Floyd riots? I don't know that I would say that we can't, the democrats seem to make it work then Quote Of course we know what Trump wanted done by the FACT that he pardoned his goons for their crimes. Just like Biden. At least trump wasn't actually related to any of the goons in question Quote There are two types of people in this world: Those who can extrapolate from incomplete data
gatomontes99 Posted February 18 Author Report Posted February 18 7 hours ago, robosmith said: Clearly we can't have people inciting violent attacks with DOUBLE TALK that others can naively use to excuse their violent intent. Of course we know what Trump wanted done by the FACT that he pardoned his goons for their crimes. So you completely ignore the fact that NAZIs were censored? You completely ignore the violence that Biden and Obama incited? And they actually incited it, Obama more so than Biden. And from that, some how you think that pardons prove he wanted J6 to happen? Then why did he approve 20,000 NG troops to assist in securing DC days ahead of J6? You arguments fail to hold up to scrutiny. Quote The Rules for Liberal tactics: If they can't refute the content, attack the source. If they can't refute the content, attack the poster. If 1 and 2 fail, pretend it never happened. Everyone you disagree with is Hitler. A word is defined by the emotion it elicits and not the actual definition. If they are wrong, blame the opponent. If a liberal policy didn't work, it's a conservatives fault and vice versa. If all else fails, just be angry.
WestCanMan Posted February 18 Report Posted February 18 22 hours ago, robosmith said: Are you trying to claim that Nazi leaders, including Hitler, didn't have free speech and didn't use it to foment hate against the Jews? LMAO If so, you're the one who is "batshit crazy." You know that free speech doesn't mean "the sovereign is allowed to say whatever they want and everyone else is likely to get beaten, jailed or killed if they speak against the leader's narrative." Quote If CNN gave an infinite number of monkeys an infinite number of typewriters, leftists would believe everything they typed. If you missed something on the Cultist Narrative Network, don't worry, the dolt horde here will make sure everyone hears it. Ex-Canadian since April 2025
impartialobserver Posted February 18 Report Posted February 18 As always, context is key. Free speech in Hilter-era Germany was not a universal right. Some had it and some did not. We can all guess as to who was given the right to free speech. 1 Quote
robosmith Posted February 18 Report Posted February 18 1 hour ago, WestCanMan said: You know that free speech doesn't mean "the sovereign is allowed to say whatever they want and everyone else is likely to get beaten, jailed or killed if they speak against the leader's narrative." I know that when Musk says "free speech absolutist on X" and then cancels posters on X for trashing HIM, that is "free speech for me but not for thee." 🤮 Quote
Recommended Posts
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.