Drugging and raping a 13 year old is now just "having sex with a former teen".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lanie

I think there should be limits to freedom of speech.

---

How about instead of gutting the First Amendment to please whatever happens to be rolling around in somebody's head at the time, we go back to some self discipline and societal morals where there are black and white lines of acceptable behavior?

Quote:

---

Criticism about how the left wants to control what people say in 5, 4, 3, 2, 1.

---

Criticism? Nah, just keep talking, Bridget. You do more damage to yourself when your fingers hit the keyboard and your brains spill out; no one here need criticize you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wasp69

How about instead of gutting the First Amendment to please whatever happens to be rolling around in somebody's head at the time, we go back to some self discipline and societal morals where there are black and white lines of acceptable behavior?

---

Asking Libs to take responsibility for their actions?

ROTFLMAO...do you realize how many generations of Liberal irresponsibility and buck passing you'd have to peel back for that to ever happen?

Quote:

---

Criticism? Nah, just keep talking, Bridget. You do more damage to yourself when your fingers hit the keyboard and your brains spill out; no one here need criticize you.

---

QFT

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lanie

I agree there's a difference between protecting the speech and the practice, but this is one of the reasons why I wouldn't join ACLU. I think there should be limits to freedom of speech. If it harms others, then it shouldn't be done.

---

How totalitarian and Communistic of you.

ANd actually Bridget...you and Novatwit would only limit speech uttered by Conservatives or anyone who disagreed with your Liberal dogma...let's be honest here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Novaheart

You hardly establish your superiority with comments such as these. I know this is probably pointless and that you'll just keep on saying such things, but surely you can comprehend that the ACLU's mission to protect unpopular speech would necessarily involved defending the most unpopular speech. The ACLU has defended NAMBLA, NAZI's, and a variety of religious and political groups. That doesn't mean that the ACLU is defending "civil liberties in diddling a kid" it means that they defend free speech.

---

Ummm...yeah...ok whatever.

The very people you listed that they've defended are the reason they draw such scorn and ire from normal Americans.

People can say whatever idiotic thing they want to...doesn't mean that someone has to jump in and defend them when they do.

But then again you have to understand the underpinnings and beliefs of the ACLU founders to understand why they defend everything that flies in the face of societal norms in this country.

Oh and I'm not making any attempt to show "superiority" princess...I'm just stating facts.

Not my fault if the truth intimidates you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by txradioguy

Asking Libs to take responsibility for their actions?

ROTFLMAO...do you realize how many generations of Liberal irresponsibility and buck passing you'd have to peel back for that to ever happen?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by John Adams

Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

---

It may take a while...

I think that we all agree that Polanski is a unique form of human sewage, and that we would all react the same way that Lanie would to someone who tried to do that to our children. The Hollywood support for Polanski and the lack of same for Kazan pretty much demonstrates where many, but not all, liberals stand on the issues. They will forgive a child molester, but not an opponent of communism. Our resident libs, Nova, Lanie and Noonwitch, are clearly not among those who fall into that category.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Odysseus

I think that we all agree that Polanski is a unique form of human sewage, and that we would all react the same way that Lanie would to someone who tried to do that to our children. The Hollywood support for Polanski and the lack of same for Kazan pretty much demonstrates where many, but not all, liberals stand on the issues. They will forgive a child molester, but not an opponent of communism. Our resident libs, Nova, Lanie and Noonwitch, are clearly not among those who fall into that category.

---

I agree. This site would be much diminished without them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AmPat

This site would be much diminished without them.

---

He wasn't saying that. He was just saying they weren't complete kooks. :biggrin-new:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lanie

I agree there's a difference between protecting the speech and the practice, but this is one of the reasons why I wouldn't join ACLU. I think there should be limits to freedom of speech. If it harms others, then it shouldn't be done.


Criticism about how the left wants to control what people say in 5, 4, 3, 2, 1.

---

There is no "but". You either believe in free speech or you don't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by txradioguy

How totalitarian and Communistic of you.

ANd actually Bridget...you and Novatwit would only limit speech uttered by Conservatives or anyone who disagreed with your Liberal dogma...let's be honest here.

---

The fact that I amuse myself with thoughts of executing certain people , doesn't alter the fact that I defend their right to free speech.

For that reason, we cannot simply round up the folks at militant immigrant rallies. To do so, even though we would nab a lot of criminaliens, would be to use government force with the effect of intimidating the (supposed) citizens and legal resident aliens exercising their First Amendment rights.