LOL. Every thread in WP should be prefaced with this. 
😛
I'm only speaking about you coming to an Allman Brothers website and bashing liberal values.
And......Which one of us is "playing the victim"?
LOL
Puzzling how someone is so concerned for the right to spew hatred...
Yep, one of the Planets great mysteries.... "How can ANYONE disagree with the Democratic point of view concerning President Trump"?!!
Well, actually, no. He’s inferring you support hateful speech. It’s an easy conclusion to draw.
My bad... Dammit I keep forgetting that the Democrats have an entirely different take on the first Amendment!...You can say whatever you want, as long as it's OK with them.
Whoa there, Whiny McDramaqueen. People daring to disagree with you aren’t violating your First Amendment rights. Needling a tender ego, maybe, but that’s about it.
Interesting take in that I am Not the one claiming my 1st Amendment rights are being "violated"..lol. That burden falls on the snowflakes who continuously advocate "Hate speech" as somehow being "mean" and responsible for hurting peoples feelings. Funny in that no one here can legally define said infraction, just the constant allusion to it as being "hateful", does that have a meaning that is supposed intimidate someone? And for the record, disagree with me all you want, you will never see me hiding behind the skirt y'all refer to as "Hate speech". I will disagree as well, but try to stay out of the gutter in that I believe making these things personal is pretty chicken****.
Ok. Let me see if I have this straightened out after all these years.
1. Liberal says something
2. You disagree
3. Liberal disagrees with your dissent
4. By the liberal simply disagreeing with you in return, the liberal is a hypocrite on the very basis that you are not to be disagreed with. You simply wish to voice your opinion and not have it challenged.
5. Since you have your own strict personal definition of the word "tolerance," that definition being "As soon as you, lowly liberal, disagree with me, you are intolerant," you can apply it however you wish.
5a. Regardless of the substance or merit of the liberal's dissent, that substance or merit is null and void since there IS no substance or merit...the ONLY issue is that the liberal simply cannot handle the existence of your opinion (Which, I give you credit for...it's a fantastic way to deflect any inquiry that comes your way that you find to uncomfortable to reply to any further)
Is that about right? This is a pretty complicated matter.
Puzzling how someone is so concerned for the right to spew hatred...
Yep, one of the Planets great mysteries.... "How can ANYONE disagree with the Democratic point of view concerning President Trump"?!!
Well, actually, no. He’s inferring you support hateful speech. It’s an easy conclusion to draw.
My bad... Dammit I keep forgetting that the Democrats have an entirely different take on the first Amendment!...You can say whatever you want, as long as it's OK with them.
Whoa there, Whiny McDramaqueen. People daring to disagree with you aren’t violating your First Amendment rights. Needling a tender ego, maybe, but that’s about it.
Interesting take in that I am Not the one claiming my 1st Amendment rights are being "violated"..lol. That burden falls on the snowflakes who continuously advocate "Hate speech" as somehow being "mean" and responsible for hurting peoples feelings. Funny in that no one here can legally define said infraction, just the constant allusion to it as being "hateful", does that have a meaning that is supposed intimidate someone? And for the record, disagree with me all you want, you will never see me hiding behind the skirt y'all refer to as "Hate speech". I will disagree as well, but try to stay out of the gutter in that I believe making these things personal is pretty chicken****.
Ok. Let me see if I have this straightened out after all these years.
1. Liberal says something
2. You disagree
3. Liberal disagrees with your dissent
4. By the liberal simply disagreeing with you in return, the liberal is a hypocrite on the very basis that you are not to be disagreed with. You simply wish to voice your opinion and not have it challenged.
5. Since you have your own strict personal definition of the word "tolerance," that definition being "As soon as you, lowly liberal, disagree with me, you are intolerant," you can apply it however you wish.
5a. Regardless of the substance or merit of the liberal's dissent, that substance or merit is null and void since there IS no substance or merit...the ONLY issue is that the liberal simply cannot handle the existence of your opinion (Which, I give you credit for...it's a fantastic way to deflect any inquiry that comes your way that you find to uncomfortable to reply to any further)Is that about right? This is a pretty complicated matter.
Spot on. You forgot the part where anyone who disagrees with him is a labeled a snowflake, then when faced with the fact that he is the BIGGGEST snowflake here, the term snowflake is now just some buzzword used by "liberals" when they have no arguments left to make because being such a BIG man, his opinions are fact.
And somehow, hilariously everyone but him is a hypocrite here.
Either top notch 5 star trolling or painful unawareness of his own insecurities and buffoonery.
I don't see why anyone would advocate hate speech. Sure it is your right to use racial slurs, gay bash, denigrate women what have you,
I didn't like it when the Neo-Nazi party was allowed to march and chant in Skokie. It was their right under the 1st Amendment, and they did so.
My feelings are that if you wish to engage in spouting what we call in Georgia as "fighting words", then you must be ready to suffer the consequences.
A few civil lawsuits citing mental cruelty could go a long way to stop it.
I didn't like it when the Neo-Nazi party was allowed to march and chant in Skokie. It was their right under the 1st Amendment, and they did so.
My feelings are that if you wish to engage in spouting what we call in Georgia as "fighting words", then you must be ready to suffer the consequences.
A few civil lawsuits citing mental cruelty could go a long way to stop it.For sure. And I get and emphatically agree with the argument that we must defend the First Amendment. Maybe in our zealous rush to defend free speech we could at the very least buffer our denial of hate speech with a brief caveat that we view racial insults and the like as unacceptable.
If someone goes on ad nauseum about the right to hate speech and never once acknowledges the basic indecency, then we can only assume they are defending not only the right, but the offending language itself.
^^^ This all day. The argument that one should just stand by and allow such speech without rebuttal or hear that such speech is vile and disgusting and then claim you're intolerant is the most laughable moments I hear. As though tolerance for hate is some expected response is just mind numbing ignorance at its highest.
Sorry if you spew hatred and get backlash don't claim it's based on intolerance blame it on what it is hatred.
The tiresome word games for justifying bad behavior shows a lack of humanity beyond my logic
For sure. And I get and emphatically agree with the argument that we must defend the First Amendment. Maybe in our zealous rush to defend free speech we could at the very least buffer our denial of hate speech with a brief caveat that we view racial insults and the like as unacceptable.
If someone goes on ad nauseum about the right to hate speech and never once acknowledges the basic indecency, then we can only assume they are defending not only the right, but the offending language itself.
The problem here is that definition, A)....Differs from definition B)...So, where do you draw the line? Simply stating and "defining" something as "Hate speech" will never satisfy THE LAW. Thank God the Supreme Court has already set forth limitations that have stood for 2 centuries. You MAY NOT exercise any speech that is a CALL FOR VIOLENCE. Other than what you wish to describe as "Hateful" is extremely vague and opens a box that should remain closed. "Indecency" is in the eye of the beholder. Grow some thicker skin and quit being so easily offended all while claiming anyone who disagrees with you is a bigot, racist, homophobe or the best one yet, "playing the victim".
I don't see why anyone would advocate hate speech
No one here is "advocating Hate speech"...Period. Until the Supreme Court defines it legally, followed by the Prosecution of one who breaks this, Non-Existent "law". It is nothing more than yada-yada speak, a fictitious term coined by those who unknowingly wish to limit a Constitutionally protected activity. I don't care how much anyone here finds it "Objectionable" or "Indecent"....Is the LAW.
I don't think any type of hate speech should be illegal, but I will exercise my right to free speech by saying that those who engage in it are a bunch of ignorant fools.
"It"...... If you feel like it....Tell me/us how as an Attorney, YOU would prosecute someone accused of said "crime" ?...What would you say to the Judge/Court/Jury?
The tiresome word games for justifying bad behavior shows a lack of humanity beyond my logic
100%
Seems some are stuck in the semantics of legalities, why, I do not know. No one is being accused of crimes, only of being a miserable human being.
[Edited on 12/16/2019 by lukester420]
"It"...... If you feel like it....Tell me/us how as an Attorney, YOU would prosecute someone accused of said "crime" ?...What would you say to the Judge/Court/Jury?
But it's not a crime.
I think you tripped up the bot mechanism, he was forced to ask a question that had nothing to do with what you said in order to ignore his ignorance. Faulty model
So, where do you draw the line?
You draw the line wirh your own conscience. There are certain standards we all recognize as socially acceptable, so all this "legal definition" stuff is hoohah. You are a fairminded person, and you know well and good what is abhorrent. It would do wonders for your staunch defense of the First Anendment if you gave an inch and acknowledged that yes you find. law notwithstanding, certain language personally unacceptable.
Words I find "Unacceptable" are few and far between. However, how I choose to use them is my decision alone. Tact plays a big part of my vocabulary and I do not choose to say things that others may find offensive, but if you "choose to be offended" by what I say/write/think that is on you and no one else.
"It"...... If you feel like it....Tell me/us how as an Attorney, YOU would prosecute someone accused of said "crime" ?...What would you say to the Judge/Court/Jury?
But it's not a crime.
"Said crime"
Thank God it is not.
Never mind
. . . I do not choose to say things that others may find offensive . . .
That works. You choose freely to limit your free speech out of personal civil responsibility.
All noise aside, I would not want to be the unfortunate racist @sswipe that happened to be taunting passersby with racial slurs when you walked by. Something tells me that you would not hesitate to set aside your semantics and physically deprive me of my First Amendment rights. Just a hunch.
Not my style; practice what you preach. But lay a hand on my girlfriend and we'll have more than words.
and physically deprive me of my First Amendment rights
I learned a long time ago to keep my nose out of other people's verbal altercations, nothing good ever comes out of uninvited involvement...
Like I said, a hunch. Anyway, we seem to concur on voluntary limits and self policing on free speech.
Good stuff and right in line with one of my most fervent beliefs:
"Mow your own lawn"
Merry X-Mas my friend
I don't see why anyone would advocate hate speech. Sure it is your right to use racial slurs, gay bash, denigrate women what have you, but spare us the defense of antisocial tendencies. Hate speech is sick and wrong and you know it.
It is perfectly legal to eat dogsh!t but we don't go on websites and promote it, then get mad at people who are offended by it. And get all indignant when folks tell us our breath smells like dogsh!t.
Eat all the dogsh!t you like, as an American it is your Constitutional right. Just don't offer me any.
[Edited on 12/16/2019 by alanwoods]
[Edited on 12/16/2019 by alanwoods]
Like I said, a hunch. Anyway, we seem to concur on voluntary limits and self policing on free speech.
Good stuff and right in line with one of my most fervent beliefs:
"Mow your own lawn"
Merry X-Mas my friend
“treat others as you would want to be treated”
That might be the common-sense caveat the founding fathers had in mind in guaranteeing the right to free speech
its a timeless meaningful axiom that belongs through the year, esp this time of year & bouncing back Yuletide best wishes
[Edited on 12/16/2019 by Stephen]
I do not choose to say things that others may find offensive, but if you "choose to be offended" by what I say/write/think that is on you and no one else.
What a complete load of garbage, why do you lie to yourself? You LOVE to say things that others may find offensive.
This is a perfect example of how disconnected from the rights of others to speak their minds you really are. YOU don't like it and YOU speak for everyone. YOU find it "Offensive" and so it goes. YOU are CHOOSING to be offended.
Not my problem.
This is a perfect example of how disconnected from the rights of others to speak their minds you really are. YOU don't like it and YOU speak for everyone. YOU find it "Offensive" and so it goes. YOU are CHOOSING to be offended.
Not the “rights of others”, just you. And I view you the same way I view a deranged belligerent drunk at a bar, but if you want to call it “offense”, go right ahead. Again, when asked why you are so angry and hateful towards Democrats and liberals, your very first words were, “because I’m working class”.....you hate being there and you need to blame someone. It just cheapens the site when you make every thread about yourself.
YOU have judged that I am "angry" LOL.. WHO in the hell are you to feel as though YOU can demand answers from anyone?. ...Read through the whole thread and see just who has an "issue" here. LOL. YOU could CHOOSE to ignore it all.....couldn't you?
YOU continually make the CHOICE to be "offended"...
YOUR issue, NOT mine.
No, you told me you were angry, and told me why you hated them.
Never happened, not in my vocabulary and if you do not post/quote those exact words, well, you Sir, are a damn Liar.
Take your time, I will be here all day.
I don't see anything wrong with hating a "political party". I hate Nazis. No, not dislike or disagree - in no uncertain terms "hate" is the accurate term. I hate Nazis. Every last one. I am intolerant of Nazis. I do not recognize their right to exist.
Every drop of Allied blood spilled in WW2 was worth kicking their ass, and may Nazi ass continue to be kicked for eternity.There's my perfectly legal hate speech.
Fair enough and to your earlier point YOU have made that judgement about your own choices.
Commendable.
I don't see anything wrong with hating a "political party"
It does relate to the current political climate. We have Nazis, wannabe Nazis, and "all but" Nazis.
We might have some Neo Nazi wannabe scum, but The Nazi party does not exist here today.
Regarding the parties we do have today, if we are going to hate or condemn people, shouldn’t it be based on their behavior rather than a value they hold or how they vote? Shouldn’t we instead judge people on how they treat others? Pinning your ire on a party is scapegoating, and an excuse.
Man you will pick on anybody that doesn't agree with you.
So here goes. I admit defeat, I concede, I proudly and loudly proclaim that you win.
You sir are the nadir, no the absolute King, of insulting behavior and speech.
I bow to your greatness of using the written word to change statements done by others to fit your agenda, to proclaim people wrong when they are right, to run away when facts don't fit your purpose, to attack posters with subdued* wording, and to not go to, or acknowledge links posted that do not follow your idea of reality.
No, no. No need to respond to thank me. I, and others, will probably not respond/read it anyway.
. Cute as a button that Jerry.
Thank you for the compliment.
I don't see anything wrong with hating a "political party"
It does relate to the current political climate. We have Nazis, wannabe Nazis, and "all but" Nazis.
We might have some Neo Nazi wannabe scum, but The Nazi party does not exist here today.
We may not have the same Nazi party as it was known in the 30’s but I think here Nazis is a catch all term for white supremacists, which yes we do still have.
Ask anyone who lives in a town in the south that these inbred mouth breathers have descended on to preserve a monument to their confederate “heroes” (or as I see them, treasonous dogs that needed a presidential pardon to avoid execution). Bunch of unemployment collecting turd burglars that have nothing to do but troll the internet and travel the south finding statues and monuments to use as evidence of the continued Northern aggression or whatever they like to cry about to compensate for their own failures and inadequacies.
They all are so quick to tell the AA community to “get over slavery, it was generations ago, get over mass violence aimed at keeping you oppressed for the next 100+ years after the war, you had a civil rights movement everything’s fine now get over it”
Yet they have nothing better to do than prop up some statues of a bunch of chumps that got slaughtered generations ago in the name of preserving the human livestock business. Yeah I get it they were veterans and yadda yadda, they were on the wrong side of history morally and their “heritage” and legacy doesn’t need to be preserved IMO. If that makes me “intolerant” then yes I am very intolerant of white supremacists, gotta fight fire with fire sometimes.
[Edited on 12/17/2019 by lukester420]
[Edited on 12/17/2019 by lukester420]
American Nazis are probably more in number and more vicious now than they were in the 1930's. Disappeared for a few years after WW2 but resurfaced in 1960. They are all over the Southwest and Northwest. Arizona is infested - Oregon, Washington, Idaho. Might not be visible in Paramus.
There are none so blind as those who will nazi . . .
http://www.nsm88.org/ "NSM" stands for National Socialist Movement, not "Nazi Scum Matter".
http://www.americannaziparty.com/
Pretty sure there have been a few around here on WP.
I think there are a few on here now, but they can't make up their minds if they are Nazis or communists.
For lukester420, my grandfather was born in 1855. His dad, uncles, and older brothers joined the 3rd Ga. Cavalry in 1863 when Union troops were invading the southern states and the Anaconda Plan of Lincoln was taking it's toll.
None owned slaves, families with as many as 17 children (my Dad, born 1917, was #17 of his brood) was the labor force and worked in rotation with each others' farms.
A couple didn't return. One died at Camp Douglas where the bodies were for a while either given to the med school for dissection, or just dropped in the lake.
There is a memorial in CHICAGO over the mound where around 6,000 Confederate dead are entombed, but only 4,200 names are depicted on the plaques.
It was paid for by donations from citizens of Chicago and lodges of SCV chapters.
https://graveyards.com/IL/Cook/oakwoods/confederate.html
So pardon me if I take it personal about the Confederate remembrance monuments.
Also, my 3rd cousin is buried in the Confederate cemetery in Rose Hill, about 200 feet from Duane and Berry.
American Nazis are probably more in number and more vicious now than they were in the 1930's. Disappeared for a few years after WW2 but resurfaced in 1960. They are all over the Southwest and Northwest. Arizona is infested - Oregon, Washington, Idaho. Might not be visible in Paramus.
There are none so blind as those who will nazi . . .
http://www.nsm88.org/ "NSM" stands for National Socialist Movement, not "Nazi Scum Matter".
http://www.americannaziparty.com/
Pretty sure there have been a few around here on WP.
I think there are a few on here now, but they can't make up their minds if they are Nazis or communists.
For lukester420, my grandfather was born in 1855. His dad, uncles, and older brothers joined the 3rd Ga. Cavalry in 1863 when Union troops were invading the southern states and the Anaconda Plan of Lincoln was taking it's toll.
None owned slaves, families with as many as 17 children (my Dad, born 1917, was #17 of his brood) was the labor force and worked in rotation with each others' farms.
A couple didn't return. One died at Camp Douglas where the bodies were for a while either given to the med school for dissection, or just dropped in the lake.
There is a memorial in CHICAGO over the mound where around 6,000 Confederate dead are entombed, but only 4,200 names are depicted on the plaques.
It was paid for by donations from citizens of Chicago and lodges of SCV chapters.https://graveyards.com/IL/Cook/oakwoods/confederate.html
So pardon me if I take it personal about the Confederate remembrance monuments.
Also, my 3rd cousin is buried in the Confederate cemetery in Rose Hill, about 200 feet from Duane and Berry.
A cemetery is a good place for a monument to the memory of the deceased, not in front of a courthouse or a middle school.
American Nazis are probably more in number and more vicious now than they were in the 1930's. Disappeared for a few years after WW2 but resurfaced in 1960. They are all over the Southwest and Northwest. Arizona is infested - Oregon, Washington, Idaho. Might not be visible in Paramus.
There are none so blind as those who will nazi . . .
http://www.nsm88.org/ "NSM" stands for National Socialist Movement, not "Nazi Scum Matter".
http://www.americannaziparty.com/
Pretty sure there have been a few around here on WP.
I think there are a few on here now, but they can't make up their minds if they are Nazis or communists.
For lukester420, my grandfather was born in 1855. His dad, uncles, and older brothers joined the 3rd Ga. Cavalry in 1863 when Union troops were invading the southern states and the Anaconda Plan of Lincoln was taking it's toll.
None owned slaves, families with as many as 17 children (my Dad, born 1917, was #17 of his brood) was the labor force and worked in rotation with each others' farms.
A couple didn't return. One died at Camp Douglas where the bodies were for a while either given to the med school for dissection, or just dropped in the lake.
There is a memorial in CHICAGO over the mound where around 6,000 Confederate dead are entombed, but only 4,200 names are depicted on the plaques.
It was paid for by donations from citizens of Chicago and lodges of SCV chapters.https://graveyards.com/IL/Cook/oakwoods/confederate.html
So pardon me if I take it personal about the Confederate remembrance monuments.
Also, my 3rd cousin is buried in the Confederate cemetery in Rose Hill, about 200 feet from Duane and Berry.
A cemetery is a good place for a monument to the memory of the deceased, not in front of a courthouse or a middle school.
Not a bad point, but where do you put it when there are several cemeteries, with some being of separate faiths?
The one in Macon is in a small triangular park at the end of Cotton Ave. There are no government buildings anywhere close by. The old Capricorn Records office building is just up the street, and the music store where the Brothers bought supplies is across the street from it.
In small towns across the south when/if the bodies were returned, they were placed in family plots fairly close to the house.
Where would you put the memorials for those from the small towns?
American Nazis are probably more in number and more vicious now than they were in the 1930's. Disappeared for a few years after WW2 but resurfaced in 1960. They are all over the Southwest and Northwest. Arizona is infested - Oregon, Washington, Idaho. Might not be visible in Paramus.
There are none so blind as those who will nazi . . .
http://www.nsm88.org/ "NSM" stands for National Socialist Movement, not "Nazi Scum Matter".
http://www.americannaziparty.com/
Pretty sure there have been a few around here on WP.
I think there are a few on here now, but they can't make up their minds if they are Nazis or communists.
For lukester420, my grandfather was born in 1855. His dad, uncles, and older brothers joined the 3rd Ga. Cavalry in 1863 when Union troops were invading the southern states and the Anaconda Plan of Lincoln was taking it's toll.
None owned slaves, families with as many as 17 children (my Dad, born 1917, was #17 of his brood) was the labor force and worked in rotation with each others' farms.
A couple didn't return. One died at Camp Douglas where the bodies were for a while either given to the med school for dissection, or just dropped in the lake.
There is a memorial in CHICAGO over the mound where around 6,000 Confederate dead are entombed, but only 4,200 names are depicted on the plaques.
It was paid for by donations from citizens of Chicago and lodges of SCV chapters.https://graveyards.com/IL/Cook/oakwoods/confederate.html
So pardon me if I take it personal about the Confederate remembrance monuments.
Also, my 3rd cousin is buried in the Confederate cemetery in Rose Hill, about 200 feet from Duane and Berry.
A cemetery is a good place for a monument to the memory of the deceased, not in front of a courthouse or a middle school.
Not a bad point, but where do you put it when there are several cemeteries, with some being of separate faiths?
The one in Macon is in a small triangular park at the end of Cotton Ave. There are no government buildings anywhere close by. The old Capricorn Records office building is just up the street, and the music store where the Brothers bought supplies is across the street from it.
In small towns across the south when/if the bodies were returned, they were placed in family plots fairly close to the house.
Where would you put the memorials for those from the small towns?
Nowhere. Why memorialize a losing effort for an unjust cause. Get over it.
1)"Racist"
2)"Bigot"
3)"Hate Speech"
4)"Playing the victim"
5)"Snowflake"These euphemisms are perfect defense mechanisms for the "Liberal on the go"!
LOL
What a country - a Utah Jazz fan permanently banned from their gym for shouting racist epithets at Russell Westbrook earlier this season, is now suing the Jazz saying his Constitution rights were violated, nothing he shouted was off color etc etc
So that’s one of the downsides of free speech - trash like that - his lawsuit should be banished too
Boy, Trump sure didn't like Nancy's "say a prayer" line. It's really really under his skin.
That's because Trump's a family man of morals & deep religious convictions.
Citing 'Two Corinthians,' Trump Struggles To Make The Sale To Evangelicals