Chesty has been deemed a radical conservative with unrealistic ideas of morality and

[musclebrains]

i will smack your ass with a paddle while you write...

You're not smacking him hard enough. Put your body into it.

 

[spongebob]

If you can't see the difference in Buddy's telling someone angrily to shut up with their threats and ad hominem attacks and Chesty's trying to get someone kicked off the board, permanently silenced in short, then there's nothing to discuss. (We don't even have to talk about terroristic threats. ) You insist on comparing a "shuttup and discuss things rationally" to "get this piece of shit off the board" forever. And that is specious.

If it's not different to you, fine. I'm not interested, by the way, in going back and dissecting the language. Anyone who read the threads knows that one person was asking for civility and the other person was asking for extermination. Both people got hot under the collar.

i dont see the difference in strongchick saying "america deserved retalliation, and got it on 9-11" and chesty calling her a vial piece of manuur slut. i think freedom of speech protects both of them.
if someone can smear fecal matter on the virgin marry and call it art and have it displayed at a museum at taxpayers expense, then i think strongchick and chesty can say what they have said. oh yea and its also chesty's right to take a poll to see if the board wants to ban strongchick. no hard feelings, just my opinion.

 

[theoak01]

your very intelligent please stay

 

[Gorlim]

dont forget there's no cum on musclebrains face cuz its all in that faggots belly.

 

[musclebrains]

dont forget there's no cum on musclebrains face cuz its all in that faggots belly.

WAnna run that by me again?

 

[musclebrains]

i dont see the difference in strongchick saying "america deserved retalliation, and got it on 9-11" and chesty calling her a vial piece of manuur slut. i think freedom of speech protects both of them.
if someone can smear fecal matter on the virgin marry and call it art and have it displayed at a museum at taxpayers expense, then i think strongchick and chesty can say what they have said. oh yea and its also chesty's right to take a poll to see if the board wants to ban strongchick. no hard feelings, just my opinion.

I'm very clear you don't see the differnce. Fact is one permanently silences people --actually brings discussion to a close -- and the other doesn't. As I predicted, you just started picking at the language again.

just to refresh your memory of the main point, which you never addressed:

"Free speech does not extend to terroristic threats. I'm sure Chesty would agree with this since, analagously, he argues that "treasonous statements" are in themselves indictable offenses. In fact, a terroistic threat is actionable while stating an unpopular opinion, even if it supports the enemy, is not. "

 

[chesty]

I'm still waiting for the quote where I directly threatened strongchick with death by my hand.

This is America and in America the vote is the most powerful weapon we have. If we do not like a law or want a law, or we don't like a senator/representative/president/etc we vote them out of office. If we do not want to hear them speak in our home or place of business we do not allow them.

If they are part of a group and that group is democratic and we feel someone should be banned, we do not just arbitrarily ban them. We put it to a vote of the group with majority rule being observed. That is what I did.

I did not only disagree with her statements, those statements I would not defend her right to speak them. To me and to many they are treasonous and vile. As long as she is American to wit she never answered that question, so I will believe she is, I will defend her right to be American and to partake of all that means. If you also remember, I stated that with freedom comes responsibility and to abuse your freedoms such as the first amendment is wrong.

Can she be tried for her statements, if it were to become a real trial in the real world, it would be up to a grand jury to decide if she should be indicted. I would say it would be 50-50 either way based on her testimony and that of others.

Now we have had a vote, the results were given to george and he will have the final say so. I did not just go ask her to be bannished, I let the people speak and speak they did.

As for her freedom of speech, no problem as long as it does not contain/infer or ask for attacks/deaths/ or otherwise treasonous acts to be conducted upon us. That I will not tolerate, not here, not anywhere.

 

[musclebrains]

speak in our home or place of business we do not allow them.

If they are part of a group and that group is democratic and we feel someone should be banned, we do not just arbitrarily ban them. We put it to a vote of the group with majority rule being observed. That is what I did.

I did not only disagree with her statements, those statements I would not defend her right to speak them. To me and to many they are treasonous and vile. As long as she is American to wit she never answered that question, so I will believe she is, I will defend her right to be American and to partake of all that means. If you also remember, I stated that with freedom comes responsibility and to abuse your freedoms such as the first amendment is wrong.

Can she be tried for her statements, if it were to become a real trial in the real world, it would be up to a grand jury to decide if she should be indicted. I would say it would be 50-50 either way based on her testimony and that of others.

Now we have had a vote, the results were given to george and he will have the final say so. I did not just go ask her to be bannished, I let the people speak and speak they did.

As for her freedom of speech, no problem as long as it does not contain/infer or ask for attacks/deaths/ or otherwise treasonous acts to be conducted upon us. That I will not tolerate, not here, not anywhere.

More fantasy, Chesty, that the nation operates the way you wish it did. Minority viewpoints are protected by the Constitution because the Founders recognized the tyranny of majorities, mobs. So, no, we don't put everything to a vote. If we'd put the Civil Rights Bill to a popular referendum, it almost certainly would not have been adopted but it was the right thing to do. What you've done is taken a grade-school popularity contest and tried to justify it as a democratic principle.

I'm glad you are supporting Strongchick's right to speak her mind. She has the right to speak, even if you personally find her statements "treasonous." There is no basis on which a grand jury would indict her. None. But have your fantasy.

 

[spongebob]

I'm very clear you don't see the differnce. Fact is one permanently silences people --actually brings discussion to a close -- and the other doesn't. As I predicted, you just started picking at the language again.

just to refresh your memory of the main point, which you never addressed:

"Free speech does not extend to terroristic threats. I'm sure Chesty would agree with this since, analagously, he argues that "treasonous statements" are in themselves indictable offenses. In fact, a terroistic threat is actionable while stating an unpopular opinion, even if it supports the enemy, is not. "

you sure are arguementative, what's your AS cycle like?
i've tried to be as polite as possible and yet your responses seem to be getting more emotionally charged.
you state that one silences people and brings the discussion to a close. nobody has been silenced on here, settle down. strongchick is still posting.

first off, refresh my memory on what main point, your main point or my main point. i made a comment to Buddy and you chimed in. simply because your emotionally charged on this subject. my original mainpoint was that buddy told chesty to shut the fuck up and then went on to talk about free speech, thats all. i told buddy and you that if chesty made specific threats to strongchick then i would not agree with that or try to say that it was protected under free speech. i"ve done said this twice now. i do not believe derrogatory comments or name calling is "terroristic threats". therefore i do think that derrogatory comments are protected.
i will re-read your post and mine to see if there is something i misunderstood or offended you by, and i'll ask that you do the same. i believe your putting more into my simple post than is actually there.
again, for the record. i belive if strongchick can say what she said about the US deserving 9-11, then chesty has the right to call her a baaad name(not threats).
again, no hard feelings bro.

 

[nikolai_bolkov]

Chesty, so you actually went ahead with the vote count and presented it to George? That is the most ridiculous thing I believe a mod here has ever done. Pathetic.

What if she does get banned? From what I have read, she can argue her points better and with cleaner language than 90% of the people arguing against her? With your principles, there would be no one left on this board that did not fit your standards. You might as well set up votes for gay, lesbian, black, asian, and muslim members to get banned as well, and I assure you that the pack you've got pulling for you will turn up and vote them off as well. Where do you draw the line?

I don't want to name call, but it's tough not to. And I wouldn't want to offend you too badly either, because you after all a mod.