Do any of you liberal nit wits realize your buddies just sold........

[12clicks]

you down the river?

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/11/na...partner=GOOGLE

the left leaning supreme court justices thought it was a good idea to start limiting the 1st amendment.

The right leaning court justices were trying to protect your first amendment rights:
"If the Bill of Rights had intended an exception to the freedom of speech in order to combat this malign proclivity of the officeholder to agree with those who agree with him, and to speak more with his supporters than his opponents, it would surely have said so," Justice Scalia wrote.


in other words, the Bill of Rights can now have an exception to the freedom of speech in order to combat this malign proclivity of PORN

ahhh, to live in a liberal fog. if only I were that dumb.

[12clicks]

holy shit!
not even a personal attack?
I guess some times I can be too right.

[TDF]

just positionin myself for the armchair politicians...im bustina mad flare yo..peace

[slapass]

Rush is that you? Back on the stuff already?

12clicks, I know we are so far opposite politically that it is comical but even you don't see this as a direct attack on porn....right?

Not good i agree over all.

[digi]

90% of people loves porn, why is "fighting porn" a good thing in the public eye? I never understood that.

[Babaganoosh]

Originally posted by 12clicks
holy shit!
not even a personal attack?
I guess some times I can be too right.

98% of the people who read the thread aren't smart enough to understand. Unless it's a thread about Iraq, most people will have nothing to say. I doubt there is as much banter to regurgitate on the subject of the US Constitution as there is on the war in Iraq.

[12clicks]

Originally posted by slapass
Rush is that you? Back on the stuff already?

12clicks, I know we are so far opposite politically that it is comical but even you don't see this as a direct attack on porn....right?

Not good i agree over all.

It's not a direct attack. thats why most of you don't get it.

[slapass]

We get it. we jsut saw it as a bigger attack on the current power structure so it was a give and take.

If we get a nother terror attack and GB II is in office we will lose more of our liberty. He already is trying to destroy our constitutional freedoms and has.

[12clicks]

Originally posted by slapass
We get it. we jsut saw it as a bigger attack on the current power structure so it was a give and take.

sorry, you don't get it. The bill of rights is not something you play give and take with.

Originally posted by slapass
If we get a nother terror attack and GB II is in office we will lose more of our liberty. He already is trying to destroy our constitutional freedoms and has.

This is a lie, often told but never supported with facts.
Now please prattle on about how the patriot act has taken away our freedoms so I can ask you to point to just one instance of a US citizen not invovled with terrorists losing his constitutional freedoms.

[GonePhishing]

In terms of the supreme court... It depends more on if each justice is more of a purest or an interpretist. Not as much to do with being left or right.

[DoubleD]

I have to admit many of the decesions of the right-wing administration has me on edge when it comes to the industry. When internet pornography and so-called "offensive material" is used as a political tool it's not good. But I'd like to believe that we serve in one of the oldest proffesions, we deal in sex and fantasy. Everyone has it or wants it, republicans, democrats, everyone. I'm gonna' wish for the best and hope that the desire for civil rights and freedoms is more powerful than political agendas. We'll see in the next election...

[ytcracker]

the right is right
join the fight

dont worry bush will get reelected if my vote counts

Originally posted by 12clicks


so I can ask you to point to just one instance of a US citizen not invovled with terrorists losing his constitutional freedoms.

There might be some debate whether or not they lost constitutional freedoms in this case.

http://reviewjournal.printthis.click...artnerI D=565

Of course he was as crooked as the day is long, but he wasn't a terrorist. I guess as long as they use it to clean up the trash there's not much reason to complain. As long as they don't decide that legitimate pornographers are "trash".

[Mr.Fiction]

Sure, and laws against bribery are also unconstitutional.

Anything that pisses off the brainwashed right wingers can't be all bad.

Pornography pisses them off and so does this ruling.

Only Rush's voice can make them happy.

[rett11]

here's where my liberal fog has led me:

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/28/politics/28LEGA.html

Justice Department officials said the cases cited in the report
represent only a small sampling of the many hundreds of nonterrorism
cases pursued under the law." -jlh

[$5 submissions]

Hmmmm "liberal" is such a broad word. Does a fiscal conservative with socially liberal values fall under this label?

[rett11]

Oh, and how could we forget the most famous misuse of the Patriot Act so far. Ashhahahahaha used it to put Tommy Chong in jail for selling bongs.

[dig420]

Originally posted by 12clicks


This is a lie, often told but never supported with facts.
Now please prattle on about how the patriot act has taken away our freedoms so I can ask you to point to just one instance of a US citizen not invovled with terrorists losing his constitutional freedoms.

how the FUCK would we know since suspects are being held without without being charged, no access to attorney's and often without even notifying anyone they're being held? You right-wing nut jobs just stagger me with your willful ignorance.

also, this article isn't about suppressing the 1st Amendment, which anyone with a more than passing familiarity with the English language would be able to comprehend. It's about campaign finance reform, something that is badly needed since we now have energy companies writing the legislation they want their bought and paid for political party, the Republicans, to pass.

See, what happens is that insurance companies spend millions of dollars on advertising to convince the dumb and gullible that there is a 'litigation explosion' whereby your average jane and john doe are trying to bankrupt the sweet and innocent insurance industry. They want caps on malpractice awards etc. The Defense industry wants to convince the dumb and gullible that the USSR is a great danger to this country. Then Iran. Then Iraq. Then China, whatever boogieman of the day will help them sell bombs to the government. The Energy companies want the dumb and gullible to believe that government regulation is killing their business by not allowing them to collude and fix prices and hold meetings with Dick Cheney where they hand him the finished bills they want passed. The Republican Party is the designated lapdog of these large corporations and it stays that way because large corporations are allowed to underwrite the financial costs of getting elected. The Republican Party does not want this situation to change.

There are a lot of dumb and gullible people out there, most of them are Republicans, but not very many of them are willing to strut and say how proud they are of their gullibility on public message boards.

[dig420]

Originally posted by $5 submissions
Hmmmm "liberal" is such a broad word. Does a fiscal conservative with socially liberal values fall under this label?

for conservatives, anyone who reads a book, speaks a foreign language and doesn't hate jews is a liberal. What is termed 'liberal' now used to be the mainstream.

[GonePhishing]

Does this board rewrite ashahahaha everytime someone tries to write ashhahahahaha (lets see... I spelled it out the right way... if it says ashahahaha) then I will know for sure!

[GonePhishing]

Wow it really does do that! That's cool as shit!

[arg]

There are many limitations on the first amendment already. Shouting "fire" in a crowded theater, divulging information that jeopardizes national security, libel and slander, obscenity, child porn, profiting from stories of ones federal felonies, incitement to commit a crime, cussing out a judge in court, and so on. Limits are added and removed with regularity. The court recognized that the campaign finance reform laws were an abridgement of first amendment rights, but felt that the state had a compelling overriding interest in regulating the election process. Just as forbidding people from shouting fire in crowded theaters limits first amendment rights, but the state has a compelling competing interest in providing for the safety of the public.

While the decision of the court is certainly open to debate, to argue that the first amendment should have no limits ignores two centuries of precedants to the contrary.

[Fletch XXX]

all the roads lead to war.

america loves it.

support the war.

[reynold]

Interesting legal analysis.

[cluck]

Like professor fletch says, "Vote with bullets."

[crockett]

Originally posted by 12clicks


This is a lie, often told but never supported with facts.
Now please prattle on about how the patriot act has taken away our freedoms so I can ask you to point to just one instance of a US citizen not invovled with terrorists losing his constitutional freedoms.

http://news.com.com/2100-1017-994810.html

how about paypal? just as a guess but could this have also been the reason paypal stopped allowing adult transactions?

[TurboAngel]

Originally posted by Armed & Hammered


98% of the people who read the thread aren't smart enough to understand. Unless it's a thread about Iraq, most people will have nothing to say. I doubt there is as much banter to regurgitate on the subject of the US Constitution as there is on the war in Iraq.

So true!



P.S. I hate that game you guys play so don't tell Turboface when it's time to play!

[Interlude]

Originally posted by dig420
for conservatives, anyone who reads a book, speaks a foreign language and doesn't hate jews is a liberal. What is termed 'liberal' now used to be the mainstream.

Hate jews? You kidding? Liberals are the most anti-semetic, anti-Israel fuckers out there.

[Interlude]

Originally posted by crockett
http://news.com.com/2100-1017-994810.html

how about paypal? just as a guess but could this have also been the reason paypal stopped allowing adult transactions?

Or maybe it had to do with the alignment of Pluto in the 3rd House that day. Notice that we've provided equal evidence for our retarded points.

[cluck]

Originally posted by Interlude
Hate jews? You kidding? Liberals are the most anti-semetic, anti-Israel fuckers out there.

What's anti-Israel got to do with anti-semitic.

I just think that zionist jews are idiots for trying to still occupy that little piece of shit in the desert, even if it means getting our asses involved.

[crockett]

Originally posted by Interlude
Or maybe it had to do with the alignment of Pluto in the 3rd House that day. Notice that we've provided equal evidence for our retarded points.

did you read the article? I posted it because he was asking for proof of the use of the Patriot Act in Non-Terror related cases. I would say the Paypal case would be proof.

I however did add in the part of a connection of paypal having to stop processing online casinos and them stopping Adult processing. There may have been no connection, but I don't think it would be a very big stretch to think they decided to lump adult in with casinos as too high of a risk.

[- AFN -]

12clicks you are the smartest man ever. Dude, fuck Newton, Galileo, Einstein, Locke, Emerson, Jefferson, John Jay, Adam Smith, etc you are the Brain! I am just so damn ecstatic I get to share this planet with someone as enlightened and wise as you. It is people like you that take humanity to the next level. Thank you, 12clicks, for being born. Thank you, for gracing us with your wisdom and even tolerating our inferior existence so you can enlighten us.

I am deeply humbled.

Originally posted by 12clicks
you down the river?

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/11/na...partner=GOOGLE

the left leaning supreme court justices thought it was a good idea to start limiting the 1st amendment.

The right leaning court justices were trying to protect your first amendment rights:
"If the Bill of Rights had intended an exception to the freedom of speech in order to combat this malign proclivity of the officeholder to agree with those who agree with him, and to speak more with his supporters than his opponents, it would surely have said so," Justice Scalia wrote.


in other words, the Bill of Rights can now have an exception to the freedom of speech in order to combat this malign proclivity of PORN

ahhh, to live in a liberal fog. if only I were that dumb.

[dig420]

Originally posted by crockett


did you read the article? I posted it because he was asking for proof of the use of the Patriot Act in Non-Terror related cases. I would say the Paypal case would be proof.

Hell no he didn't read the article, he's a conservative and it's just too hard, all those little words all strung together like that.

Conservatives get all their information from AM radio.

[12clicks]

Originally posted by dig420


how the FUCK would we know since suspects are being held without without being charged, no access to attorney's and often without even notifying anyone they're being held? You right-wing nut jobs just stagger me with your willful ignorance.

also, this article isn't about suppressing the 1st Amendment, which anyone with a more than passing familiarity with the English language would be able to comprehend. It's about campaign finance reform, something that is badly needed since we now have energy companies writing the legislation they want their bought and paid for political party, the Republicans, to pass.

See, what happens is that insurance companies spend millions of dollars on advertising to convince the dumb and gullible that there is a 'litigation explosion' whereby your average jane and john doe are trying to bankrupt the sweet and innocent insurance industry. They want caps on malpractice awards etc. The Defense industry wants to convince the dumb and gullible that the USSR is a great danger to this country. Then Iran. Then Iraq. Then China, whatever boogieman of the day will help them sell bombs to the government. The Energy companies want the dumb and gullible to believe that government regulation is killing their business by not allowing them to collude and fix prices and hold meetings with Dick Cheney where they hand him the finished bills they want passed. The Republican Party is the designated lapdog of these large corporations and it stays that way because large corporations are allowed to underwrite the financial costs of getting elected. The Republican Party does not want this situation to change.

There are a lot of dumb and gullible people out there, most of them are Republicans, but not very many of them are willing to strut and say how proud they are of their gullibility on public message boards.

ahhh, I knew I could scare up a left wing nut job.

I guess Justice Scalia is one of those dumb and gullable people out there.

"If the Bill of Rights had intended an exception to the freedom of speech in order to combat this malign proclivity of the officeholder to agree with those who agree with him, and to speak more with his supporters than his opponents, it would surely have said so," Justice Scalia wrote.


Its going to be a hilarious election.
All of the leftists will be outraged that 80% of the people could be so gullable.
They'll not even be bright enough to even CONSIDER they should put down the liberal pipe and get an education.