See other Miscellaneous Articles
Title: Drudge Headline: SHOCK: MCCAIN VOLUNTEER ATTACKED AND MUTILATED IN PITTSBURGH
Source:
[None]
URL Source: http://www.drudgereport.com/
Published: Oct 23, 2008
Author: Drudge
Post Date: 2008-10-23 16:14:45 by christine
Keywords: None
Views: 9199
Comments: 659
'B' CARVED INTO 20-YEAR OLD WOMAN'S FACE... DEVELOPING...
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-536) not displayed.
.
.
.
#537. To: scrapper2 (#526)
That is how free speech as it is spelled out in the First Amendment works. No laws can be made to abridge it, but suffering the consequences of one's speech is the best regulator of what is said in existence. I never approve of nor like the racist discourse that goes on in here, and I only don't go after it because logistically I can't. And I think I am suspecting that if several folks showed up to take racism on in here in concert, more banning would happen. I would hope this would not be so, but I really wonder if taking on the racist focus in here would be allowed to take place.
Great stuff as usual, HC. About this 'exotic dancer'. If anyone wants to see what we're up against if Obama and imps like McCarthy get political power, read this book. The only recourse we have is white unification, and a push back. It's that or sit back and lose the nation.
that is a very vague and elusive answer. tell me, who would make the determination that someone's sense of well being and worth is stolen by someone else's words? and how would this "crime" be prosecuted? how do you square this with the first amendment? i'd appreciate direct answers to my questions as well as answers to X-15's.
Do You Know What Freedom Really Means? Freedom4um.com
When I snuck in here, I told the owner I would like to be in charge of something. She said I was in charge of nothing. Thats how I got my job. Pay is lousy but the title is nice. I must agree having a title is nice. There is a hole in the chain link fence. That's how I got in.
So, as X-15 noted above, you consider speech criminal. What would you charge the 'criminals' with, Mikey?
Is this like when Carter had 'lust in his heart'? Therefore making him guilty of adultery? How about when you think of turning right before the light is green? No traffic, no one coming, is it a crime to think of turning before the GREEN hands down permission?
I just do it. I don't really think about it much since it is not a crime in my state.
God is always good!
What hogwash. What constitution are you reading because certainly it is not the US's. Here's what the ACLU says about our first amendment rights and the ACLU's stand on "hate speech" - certainly, Mike, you of all people would honor the ACLU's legal position on issues. www.aclu.org/studentsrigh...ion/12808pub19941231.html Many universities, under pressure to respond to the concerns of those who are the objects of hate, have adopted codes or policies prohibiting speech that offends any group based on race, gender, ethnicity, religion or sexual orientation. That's the wrong response, well-meaning or not. The First Amendment to the United States Constitution protects speech no matter how offensive its content. Speech codes adopted by government-financed state colleges and universities amount to government censorship, in violation of the Constitution. And the ACLU believes that all campuses should adhere to First Amendment principles because academic freedom is a bedrock of education in a free society. How much we value the right of free speech is put to its severest test when the speaker is someone we disagree with most. Speech that deeply offends our morality or is hostile to our way of life warrants the same constitutional protection as other speech because the right of free speech is indivisible: When one of us is denied this right, all of us are denied. Since its founding in 1920, the ACLU has fought for the free expression of all ideas, popular or unpopular. That's the constitutional mandate. Where racist, sexist and homophobic speech is concerned, the ACLU believes that more speech -- not less -- is the best revenge. This is particularly true at universities, whose mission is to facilitate learning through open debate and study, and to enlighten. Speech codes are not the way to go on campuses, where all views are entitled to be heard, explored, supported or refuted. Besides, when hate is out in the open, people can see the problem. Then they can organize effectively to counter bad attitudes, possibly change them, and forge solidarity against the forces of intolerance...
I thought traffic law was about safety. With that in mind, I also do what makes sense.
Mike, you are behaving rather oddly tonight. You can't be serious. You honestly believe that a person should be charged with a crime "for stealing someone's sense of well being and worth" - barf - or "for denigrating their social standing" - petoowie! Ever heard of the saying "sticks and stones my break my bones but words will never hurt me"? Every child learns that basic method of self defense against churlish people. If someone is so fragile that his sense of self-worth or his perception of social standing is denigrated by someone's words, that person needs medical intervention, not police intervention. I'm sorry but you are sounding very outrageously nutty tonight. Tsk, tsk. I once thought you had a decent enough brain. But extreme liberalism will push someone off the deep end, I guess.
It is. Then they can organize effectively to counter bad attitudes, possibly change them, and forge solidarity against the forces of intolerance... This is not the goal of said organization. It is a divide and conquer tactic. There is only one thing that unites people on a sinking boat in the middle of the ocean. Political discussions about race would probably fall last in such a situation. The ignorant drown.
Should a vote be held, I'd say that this thread has devolved into the stupidest thread ever on this forum.
We cannot afford peace at any price. - Newt Gingrich, May 29, 1998
Oh really? I can't help but notice that you only focus on examples of racism in whites impacting blacks negatively but you make no mention of blacks' racism against whites. Surely you must be aware of the high rate of inter-racial crime of blacks victimizing whites? It is a one-way street by the way, but you probably know that. Yet what's curious about this DOJ inter-racial violent crime statistic is that with regards to hate crimes being prosecuted by the Justice system, there's a paucity of cases where blacks are prosecuted under these "special circumstances." What gives, Mike? Are the high rates of black crimes against whites examples of blacks showing white people LOVE? You see where I'm going with this don't you, Mike - there's a certain PREJUDICE against whites when violence inflicted upon them by non-whites occurs. Therefore and thusly, I am rather leery of criminalizing "thought" crimes because those cases will only be prosecuted against whitey and unfairly so if "hate crimes" prosecution is any indication of how things work out when "good intentions" are in play. The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.
Now it has.
Rumors rumors and facts. One of which the brainwashed refuse to dare question or explore. Driven by extreme self gratification rather than concern for the greater national concerns. Good post.
Though here in Lane County the city and county government are going to spring for the extra postage if people don't put the right amount on the ballots that weigh more then normal and are in a larger envelope then usual. FYI, I was living in Los Angeles in 1982 when former LA Mayor Tom Bradley lost the governor's race to George Deukmejian, and the real reason that Bradley was defeated was Proposition 15. * Home * Important disclaimer * Hot Topics resources "The “Bradley Effect” and Prop 15 (and Prop 8?) A lot has been written in the past several weeks about the “Bradley effect” (also sometimes called the “Wilder effect,” after Douglas Wilder, the former governor of Virginia). The term purports to name a phenomenon in which voters indicate to pollsters that they are planning to vote for an African-American candidate but end up choosing the opposite course once at the polling station. The phenomenon was named after Tom Bradley, the late mayor of Los Angeles, who, according to the theory, was ahead in most polls in the California gubernatorial race in 1982 but ended up losing the election to George Deukmejian by a margin of nearly 100,000 votes. The phenomenon was apparently first described by Mervin Field, who on election night predicted a five-point Bradley win based on exit polls, but later told the Los Angeles Times that he believed that “conservative whites were under-represented in his sample and that minority groups were over-represented,” adding that “some conservative whites do not like to be polled and won’t cooperate.” Leo McElroy, a Sacramento political consultant, told KCBS Radio News this morning that he thought that while there was some evidence in favor of the “Bradley effect,” there was also evidence that Proposition 15, 1982’s gun control initiative, brought out many voters to the polls who might not have otherwise participated. He seemed to suggest that Proposition 15 was as much a factor in Bradley’s loss as any “Bradley effect.” (Proposition 15 lost at the polls by an overwhelming margin.) (2 to 1 to be exact-HD) In any case, the “Bradley effect” terminology, whether it accurately depicts a phenomenon of voting behavior or not, has become part of the lexicon, and has been applied not only to the 2008 presidential race, in which Barack Obama is ahead of John McCain in many polls, but to contests like the battle over Proposition 8, in which a seemingly insurmountable poll lead for opponents of the measure during the summer vanished during the fall." puppy growls: The fact is, the gun initiative brought rural voters out who wouldn't have bothered to vote if the only issue was California getting its first African American governor. Those same voters were not polled for that reason-they were not a factor in previous elections. It's a sad truth that the story that would have the most sticking power is the one that implies that whites are closet racists who lie to pollsters. The media can't bring themselves to admit that Prop 15, which they backed tooth and nail and jammed down our throats for weeks before the election cost Bradley the race. For what it's worth Deukmejian was extremely eloquent in his speeches and on talk show interviews, and he said all the right things at a time when Ronald Reagan was ascending to the throne of conservo demigod. Bradley was an uninspired cookie cutter liberal anti gunner (and former LAPD Lieutenant-the highest African American officer at that time-but cops in general and LAPD in particular ain't exactly the heroes of CA politics) with a message that appealed to few, and his primary support come from non (and anti) white interests, who would have voted for any black running regardless of qualifications. The minority racists would have been easy to document and expose, simply by asking some what they liked about Bradley's platform. But the MSM in CA wouldn't ever do that. There are only so many column inches in print and minutes of airtime and that must be reserved to document "white racism". ____________ Regarding Lane County's planned enforcement of postage on ballots, someone could collect a few hundred bux and drop it off to be used to pay for any postage deficits that arrive at elections. And, then dare those bastards to try and reject any ballot for insufficient postage. They've already killed my candidate's chances and robbed Americans of the chance to restore our former greatness. So, who wins isn't important, but how they win can still bring out the Hellfire in me. Crooks like former Ohio Sec. Of State Ken Blackwell and his cronies, the execs at DIEBOLD belong in prison, singing, "NOBODY KNOW THE TROUBLE I'VE SEEN....NOBODY KNOWS....BUT JESUS....."
I don't support or sanction any racism, black on white, white on black, Hispanic against black, white against Hispanic, but they do have differences in origin and how each developed overall. White racism developed from a majority that used 'The Doctrine of Discovery' and later Manifest Destiny to mold and shape how racism was used to consolidate and build the doctrine of racism into a system of control and to maintain others in a permanent underclass in this country. I recognize European racism against Natives in the Americas, against Asians and Africans as a central part of the problem of racism in the United States. But all racism, regardless who has it and why they feel justified in expressing it is equally bad. There is no doubt about that.
Holy desperate McCampaign beginning to do desperate and reckless things! Do you think this is true?
Antiparty - find out why, think about 'how'
Omegod!!! Ciny!!!! You GOTTA Rush to Pittsburgh and protect our Sarah! This is so serious! Now 'we' can all see what this Obama thingy is about. Is they trying to rape and mutilate our white weemin.
Antiparty - find out why, think about 'how'
For what it's worth Deukmejian was extremely eloquent in his speeches and on talk show interviews, and he said all the right things at a time when Ronald Reagan was ascending to the throne of conservo demigod. Bradley was an uninspired cookie liberal anti gunner (and former LAPD Lieutenant-the highest African American officer at that time-but cops in general and LAPD in particular ain't exactly the heroes of CA politics) with a message that appealed to few, and his primary support come from non (and anti) white interests, who would have voted for any black running regardless of qualifications. Insightful post though I'd quibble with your use of the word "racist" when you refer to the reason white voters cast their ballots for Deukmejian. They voted for the candidate with whom they most closely identified, a very natural behavior instinct. It was not a case of their voting against Bradley because he was black.
I hope this wakes people up. It's 1:46 a.m. and I am wide awake now, because of this. My 2 Huskies have a lot of Black on them. Should I be afraid? I guess I'll have no choice but to vote for the McCain the Senile now.
Antiparty - find out why, think about 'how'
This true news demonstrates beyond a doubt that It's hunting season on Whitey now. We got to defend ourselves and lynch us a couple Negroes.
Antiparty - find out why, think about 'how'
She was obviously traumatized, and probably called her personal Physician Indeed. We should only trust our White Physicians. This White girl of ours must be in so much pain, I'm all teared up and sobbing.
Antiparty - find out why, think about 'how'
Shame on them. This is so TRUE. It's good that we had McCain campaign right on top of the situation and they spread the truth at a time when the Police, obviously infiltrated by Blacks, refused to release the truth that we all wanted to hear.
Antiparty - find out why, think about 'how'
And... skirt up Jethro the Retired Cop.
Antiparty - find out why, think about 'how'
That is how free speech as it is spelled out in the First Amendment works. No laws can be made to abridge it, but suffering the consequences of one's speech is the best regulator of what is said in existence. That's exactly right, Mike. How many times have we heard some state worshiper say that "You can't shout fire in a crowded theater!"? The truth is the opposite. You CAN shout fire if there's a fire, or if you smell smoke (or if you follow the advice of fmr NYPD Detective and security consultant/author J.J. Bookbinder, who recommends shouting fire instead of "rape!" because people who won't get involved in a rape would be threatened by fire so they will respond) and you can shout "FIRE!" even if none of these conditions are present. The govt does not have the power to tape your mouth before you enter a theater because that would be unconstitutional prior restraint!" However, if you needlessly cause a panic and injury and/or property damage then you could be (and should be) tossed in jail. And that is "suffering the consequences of one's speech" as you said. The freedom to speak does not automatically indemnify or insulate one from responsibility for the abuse of a constitutional right, any more than the right to keep and bear arms automatically brings with it the right to fire weapons in the direction of another. In either case one had better be prepared to justify the legally questionable exercise of a constitutional right. Where you and I may part company is, perhaps you'd like to see the law come down on Nazi/Klan/BNP marches and such because riots (involving those hot blooded "other people") ensue. But, that strategy has been used by anti fascists and fascists alike in the past, and it has no place in America. It's a shoddy end run around the rights of those who exercise their freedom for unpopular or non-PC reasons. If everyone was limited to only soft, unoffensive expression then why would we even need a 1st amendment?
Indeed like in... it did not occur. I am reading this thread for entertainment and I am getting lots of. (that was Sarahspeak) The level of Cretinism on this thread is so high (or low... it depends where your point of reference may be) it beats that of Jerry the Springer's show by... a lot. I did note the lucid analysis from Angle and a couple of others but... Ciny, Jethro, the Original... the other usual suspects, they do not disappoint.
Antiparty - find out why, think about 'how'
It turns out that the report was from McCain the Campaign, you stupid, credulous, one-born-every-minute sucker.
Antiparty - find out why, think about 'how'
Confession time? :))))))
Antiparty - find out why, think about 'how'
And that is "suffering the consequences of one's speech" as you said. Where you and I may part company is, perhaps you'd like to see the law come down on Nazi/Klan/BNP marches and such because riots (involving those hot blooded "other people") ensue. But, that strategy has been used by anti fascists and fascists alike in the past, and it has no place in America. It's a shoddy end run around the rights of those who exercise their freedom for unpopular or non-PC reasons. "The Supreme Court requires the government to provide substantial justification for the interference with the right of free speech where it attempts to regulate the content of the speech. A less stringent test is applied for content-neutral legislation. The Supreme Court has also recognized that the government may prohibit some speech that may cause a breach of the peace or cause violence." Content of speech cannot be regulated by government. End of story.
An excellent point, and no one in the CA MSM would ever think to air the question, "Why is Tom Bradley automatically presumed to be the better candidate?" It seemed that the unspoken presumption was "It's time for a person of color to be governor" and "right thinking whites" were supposed to "do social justice" by voting for Bradley. It may be difficult for outsiders to believe but CA is that eat slap up (as mah Confederate relations would say) with unrepentant liberalism, and for whites that meant heaping ladles of guilt and sacrifice by falling on their swords (voting against their perceived interests) at that time. When my former trumpet player learned I was moving to LA, he just laughed. (He was a postal worker out there years before) When I asked why he chortled to himself he said, "You'll find out!" And, I did. When Bradley's defeat was announced the newscasters were so somber and heartbroken that I actually laughed out loud while watching them on TV! It was as if Jane Fonda and Tom Hayden had opened a combination assault rifle/indoor target shooting boutique and daycare center on Rodeo Drive! And when Prop 15 fell by a 2 to 1 margin the newscaster banged his fist on the desk and shouted, "WHEN WILL PEOPLE EVER LEARN?" The gun proposition was extremely divisive because the media totally blocked out any spoken and written opposition to the ban, and we were carpet bombed with proponents on talks shows, in newspapers and even nightly newscasts for weeks before. It was clear that any dirty trick they could use was fair to "defeat the awesome gun lobby" a tactic that was later repeated in MD when they created their "handgun approval (ban) board" which by fiat may decree what guns are available for sale in the state..
Content of speech cannot be regulated by government. End of story. Very good. Timely and informative. A+. (teacher's pet)
It was the kid who reported it to the police, hence the arrest of her, and not a member of the McCain campaign. And jeez....who could make a mistake thinking a white kid could get mugged by a burr head in the 'berg. Go peddle your white guilt somewhere else. Obama voters, but virtue of the adoration of socialism, aren't a good fit here. Now scat.
You mean Vast the side line runner still posts here? Good heavens, where is the Orkins man when we need him. Reminds me of Colon Bowell..."I am supporting Obama, but not because of race".... It seems to escape the intelligence and decency of some of our white guilters that no one on this forum supports "whitey" McKook or Palin.
Vast is a despicable socialist, enamored by black skin. Remove the melanin from his Saviour and you have Ted Kennedy. The poor soul is reduced to hit and run tactics, but like Mikey, I expect him to do a victory lap after the Black one and his nasty wife defile the White House w/their presence come January. Obama will never be my president, and for those who believe the office of the president deserves respect, well they're living in a time warp. Vast is the essence of white guilt, and a prime example why we've temporarily lost the nation.
No one seems concerned or have the slightest interest in the fact that 101 per cent of blacks just happen to support Obama. It would seem to a rational person that at least one black somewhere would have black guilt and support McKooK. This, however, is not the case. MSM, white guilters and their ilk all ignore the total black support for Obama. My personal preference for my own race makes me a "racist", but glacks get a pass on the very same level. Then we have the guilters that prefer not to live in Harlem nor any inner city, that stand on the rooftops telling the world how pure their soul is, just dont make them live in Harlem.
Geez, all your verbage has me cowing in the corner. In order to proper respond to your accusations/disappointment more time than what I have to devote to this project today is required. Let me simply say for now that I recognize the issues in the black culture in America today and don't dismiss them. However, as to my secret motive for judging a man based on his person rather than his color, on his person rather than his genetic or cultural group, there is only my upbringing. I am a descendent of Polish American parents, raised with the traditional Polish customs that remained from what my families brought with them in the early part of the last century. Raised Roman Catholic in mixed neighborhoods of Polish-AM, Irish-AM, Italian-AM and some African-AM among others. Polak, Kike, Jew, Wop, Nigger were all a part of what I heard and saw. One of the nicest men I knew in my life was "Scag" Cottman the trash man. Older black and steady, he was a model of dignity and work ethic, friendly and a community man who devoted his time to black youth in baseball and other events. Perhaps that relationship shaped my views. My father was a racist against blacks. I never agreed with that. During the course of my life I have been friendly with blacks but never close friends. Their culture hasn't allowed for it. I have worked with blacks and get along with never a problem. Therefore, when the offensive racists on this board like JT and cyni and others getting a thread going with hateful non-productive rhetoric based upon the problems in the black culture in America that has a myriad of causes and few solutions and wants to castigate and disparage a whole group of people, yes, people, human beings like you and I, I take exception. That doesn't mean I don't see an explosive powder keg of problems set to explode in our cities, but remember that all of this including the financial tsunami was done by design. I don't agree that hateful discourse is productive. The language and insinuation is beneath the level of discussion in which I choose to participate and I take exception to it.
Right. And (horrors) a majority of Whitey. Could it be that a majority of Whites are anti-White, the same way, Sarah proved it to us, a majority of the US Americans are anti-Americans?
Antiparty - find out why, think about 'how'
It's illegal to sexually abuse animals, you need help.
It's the second mouse that gets the cheese
That MUST be it.
Your comments in this post are absolute horseshit and border on paranoid delusional.
Comments (578 - 659) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest"A rather dodgey answer, if I may say so. You say on the one hand that racists [ or people whose opinions that don't jive with yours] have "a right" to free speech but on the other hand they are "accountable" for their words????"
"You only have power over people so long as you don't take everything away from them. But when you've robbed a man of everything he's no longer in your power -- he's free again. Alexander Solzhenitsyn
#538. To: Hypocrisy Cop (#533)
#539. To: Ferret Mike, X-15 (#530)
However, if they verbally harass someone and use their racism to steal someone's sense of well being and worth, and to denigrate their social standing, that person should be charged with a serious crime.
#540. To: Cynicom (#534)
I give good grades to posters that are brief, to the point and do not travel off into excess verbiage.
#541. To: Ferret Mike, X-15 (#535)
calling say several young girls racial epithets
#542. To: christine (#539)
tell me, who would make the determination that someone's sense of well being and worth is stolen by someone else's words?
#543. To: OliviaFNewton (#542)
How about when you think of turning right before the light is green?
#544. To: Ferret Mike (#537)
That is how free speech as it is spelled out in the First Amendment works. No laws can be made to abridge it, but suffering the consequences of one's speech is the best regulator of what is said in existence.
#545. To: RickyJ (#543)
I just do it. I don't really think about it much since it is not a crime in my state.
#546. To: Ferret Mike (#530)
(Edited)
However, if they verbally harass someone and use their racism to steal someone's sense of well being and worth, and to denigrate their social standing, that person should be charged with a serious crime.
#547. To: scrapper2 (#544)
(Edited)
#548. To: christine (#0)
#549. To: Ferret Mike (#535)
Writing 'The Bell Curve' was not criminal behavior, calling say several young girls racial epithets and or beating up a man because someone does not like African Americans is overt damages done unto others that have standing as crime, as well it should.
#550. To: rack42 (#548)
Should a vote be held, I'd say that this thread has devolved into the stupidest thread ever on this forum.
#551. To: OliviaFNewton (#521)
There are also rumblings about his manchurian status as a boy broken by sexual abuse, that his father is Frank Marshall, that his reasons for being in Hawaii isn't just to tend to his dear grandmother, that he was forced to appear regarding his birth certificate, that all of this is coming out in the week ahead, and that none of that will change the selection.
#552. To: Ferret Mike, christine, Jethro Tull (#523)
(Edited)
You are correct, and I wonder if they won't try to claim the Bradley Effect is what made the thing go south if it does. At DU there have been threads about machine malfunctions in several places.
#553. To: scrapper2 (#549)
"You only have power over people so long as you don't take everything away from them. But when you've robbed a man of everything he's no longer in your power -- he's free again. Alexander Solzhenitsyn
#554. To: christine (#0)
'B' CARVED INTO 20-YEAR OLD WOMAN'S FACE... DEVELOPING...
#555. To: Cynicom (#5)
It happened and Palin is in Pittsburgh tonite.
#556. To: HOUNDDAWG (#552)
It's a sad truth that the story that would have the most sticking power is the one that implies that whites are closet racists who lie to pollsters. The media can't bring themselves to admit that Prop 15, which they backed tooth and nail and jammed down our throats for weeks before the election cost Bradley the race.
#557. To: Flintlock (#12)
(Edited)
This whole thing is starting to get out of hand. We've had shootings, beatings and now this, All From The Obama Camp
#558. To: lodwick (#16)
load and lock, bump
#559. To: Flintlock (#20)
Did you ever think that maybe the woman didn't want to go to the Emergency Room of a public hospital where she would most likely have to deal with more black people?
#560. To: Cynicom (#22)
Must be the Pittsburgh Police faked the whole thing and duped the TV station, that must be it.
#561. To: Jethro Tull (#40)
Another crazed Irishman. Arm up boys and girls.
#562. To: Ferret Mike, scrapper2, christine (#537)
"A rather dodgey answer, if I may say so. You say on the one hand that racists [ or people whose opinions that don't jive with yours] have "a right" to free speech but on the other hand they are "accountable" for their words????"
#563. To: Original_Intent (#43)
Yup. The only way they'd cover it is if it were a crazed white christian televangelist attacking an elderly black woman. The Presstitutes operate off of a template and anything which does not fit it did not occur.
#564. To: Jethro Tull (#55)
That report is from the victim and witness, you're has been yanked our of your backside, you slimy WG'er.
#565. To: Jethro Tull (#61)
I smell a Pittsburgh nigger.
#566. To: HOUNDDAWG, Ferret Mike (#562)
However, if you needlessly cause a panic and injury and/or property damage then you could be (and should be) tossed in jail.
#567. To: scrapper2 (#556)
...though I'd quibble with your use of the word "racist" when you refer to the reason white voters cast their ballots for Deukmejian. They voted for the candidate with whom they most closely identified, a very natural behavior instinct. It was not a case of their voting against Bradley because he was black.
#568. To: scrapper2 (#566)
"The Supreme Court requires the government to provide substantial justification for the interference with the right of free speech where it attempts to regulate the content of the speech. A less stringent test is applied for content-neutral legislation. The Supreme Court has also recognized that the government may prohibit some speech that may cause a breach of the peace or cause violence."
#569. To: a vast rightwing conspirator (#564)
It turns out that the report was from McCain the Campaign, you stupid, credulous, one-born-every-minute sucker.
#570. To: Jethro Tull (#569)
#571. To: Cynicom (#570)
#572. To: Jethro Tull (#571)
#573. To: HOUNDDAWG, christine (#503)
I really am trying to avoid unnecessary roughness with angle.
#574. To: Cynicom (#572)
No one seems concerned or have the slightest interest in the fact that 101 per cent of blacks just happen to support Obama.
#575. To: a vast rightwing conspirator (#557)
My 2 Huskies have a lot of Black on them.
#576. To: a vast rightwing conspirator (#574)
Could it be that a majority of Whites are anti-White, the same way, Sarah proved it to us, a majority of the US Americans are anti-Americans?
#577. To: HOUNDDAWG (#488)
(Edited)
.
.
.