Free Speech Or Misuse Of The Right? [Pic]

Submitted by: daverazor 4 years ago in Misc

Just an average sign in Northern Wisconsin. Makes you wonder if free speech is a right or should be earned.
There are 90 comments:
Male 40,734
Last Image:


0
Reply
Male 40,734



Francesca Lucchini is my favorite!

Oversized Lucchini!

And slightly NSFW (only a little!) From the movie!



So much more fun than arguing!

0
Reply
Male 2,675
Freedom of Speech is not freedom from the consequences of certain speech - shouting fire in a theater, obscenities in front of minors ... and potential threats or wishes of death towards the President of the United States. No doubt the "speaker" here just made the first few pages of the government watch list.
0
Reply
Male 3,745
STRIKE WITCHES MOVIE WHOO
0
Reply
Male 40,734
@chalket: He wants people to vote FOR OBAMA... he must be... (fill in that blank!)

This happened in October, eh? Before the election.
0
Reply
Male 40,734
Thanks @collegebound! I finished watching:

Dragon Crisis! Very cute, nothing spectacular.

Joshiraku 5 cute girls being cute, VERY funny!

Ebiten The adventures of the ASStronomy Club! Yes pun intended! The manga was funnier, overall.

Am Watching:

I! Me! My! Strawberry Eggs

About a guy who dresses like a woman to teach gym at a juniour highschool... very funny so far!

Strike Witches Movie! yaya!
0
Reply
Male 3,745
well i for one LIKE debating with 5Cats and CrakrJak.

also 5Cats likes good anime (ANIME not HENTAI).

just my 2 cents.
0
Reply
Male 2,578
You all have got to chill out.
0
Reply
Male 2,711
@5Rats: um... No. Did I make any claim of his political party or his motivations? Please stop making assumptions, that is the cause of many of your LOLZ-worthy statements.

He could be an independent, a libertarian or a zoroastrian for all I know or care (or even a Republican). The only assertion I made is that his sign certainly comes across as very racist regardless of his subsequent public face-saving, that his story of being pro-Obama is unproven and unprovable and since it does serve to avoid him some potential hot water it can logically be doubted. You took it as gospel truth, I took it as unlikely.

Seriously, also, please stop using that "IF (he/she/they)... (fill the blank) WOULD BE..." as proof. It is not proof, it is your conjecture, nothing more.
0
Reply
Male 40,734
[quote]Thomas Savka`s trolling...[/quote]
@chalket: So YOU claim that HE is a Repub pretending to be a Dem in order to get people to NOT vote fore Obama by saying people should vote FOR him?

Am I clear on that?
Link to prove he`s a Republican or STFU! I even found his name for you!
Seriously, IF HE WERE a Repub the MSM would be ALL OVER this story! But they aren`t...
0
Reply
Male 14,331


THAT WASN`T THE PLAN!!
0
Reply
Male 2,711
[quote]It is a stupid sign no matter what angle you look at it from. It`s just as offensive as the code pinko idiots that hung GW Bush in effigy over 4 years ago.[/quote]

Dammit, CrakrJak, stop making me agree with you! It`s painful! (j/k about that last bit :-))
0
Reply
Male 2,711
OMG! 5Rats fell for Thomas Savka`s trolling!!! LOL! (LOLZ?)

That teeny-tiny "I Love Obama" at the bottom looks kinda hastily scrawled to me. Maybe after a call from the Secret Service? Do you really believe that any asshat that would put a noose with that phrase could possibly, in any way, mean it to be pro-Obama? Wow...
0
Reply
Male 17,511
madest: [quote]This sign is indefensible.[/quote]

You know what, I agree with you. It is a stupid sign no matter what angle you look at it from. It`s just as offensive as the code pinko idiots that hung GW Bush in effigy over 4 years ago.
0
Reply
Male 40,734
[quote]why seatbelt laws should not exist.[/quote]
@HumanAction: You`ve made tons of excellent points! This one tiny thing I`d disagree on, slightly.
The law to put them IN the cars is fine! It used to be the dealership would install them, at EXTRA cost! Only if you demanded it.
PUTTING them in the cars leaves people free to choose to use them or not!
Airbags = same thing, only let the OWNER of the car be able to switch them on and off, eh?

[quote]Most libertarians I know want a federal republic.[/quote]
True that! Anacrchy is NOT a Libertarian goal! We live within the "societal contract" and accept reasonable limitations on out freedoms. No driving drunk for example, it`s not `your right` as long as others share the roads with you, eh?

Being drunk in your own home = your right!
0
Reply
Male 40,734
[quote]Nothing can be said in support of this sign but you`ve found a way. This sign is indefensible.[/quote]
@madest: You DO KNOW it was put up by an OBAMA SUPPORTER right? It has tiny writing in the corner and the guy has said so in interviews, he put it up to "shock people" into voting FOR OBAMA...

@BoredFrank: Missing the point as well... as usual!

[quote]Reps have degenerated mightily...[/quote]
@QueenZira: You mean DEMS have... it was put up BY AN OBAMA SUPPORTER... just incase you`re deaf as well as blind, I`m forced to USE ALL CAPS!

[quote]I`ll tell you, if I hadn`t met folks like this in real life, I`d have thought it was all an act.[/quote]
Ditto @Patchouly! I`ve spent lots of time with hippies, liberals and whatnots... just like yourself!

[quote]if you want to smoke while bathing in a tub full of gasoline...[/quote]
No!NO! @QZ We need LAWS against that! The more LAWS the better!
0
Reply
Male 40,734
"He said unemployment went down after Reagan was elected but before he took office because the market "reacts to good news"."

This is @CrakrJak you`re talking about? I`ve never said anything like that...

WE discussed unemployment several times, you ALWAYS lost, idk why you bothered.
"1 million jobs better under Obama" when the FACTS (Even leaving 2/3 of January out) say 330K jobs LOST?

From Your Own Link the facts proved my point(s)...
0
Reply
Male 2,357
[quote]Doesn`t the Constitution provide an illusion of freedom?[/quote]
Well, yes and no...

The Constitution does provide for some indisputable liberties - mostly defined in the Bill of Rights. After that point, the purpose is not to ensure freedom for the citizens. The purpose of the Constitution was/is to establish a method of governing: a federal republic.

With this in mind, one could say that the Constitution does not chiefly concern itself with freedom; rather, it is concerned with how best to establish a system of governing with the best chance to result in individual freedom. It is a tight line...

That being said, I think it is fair to suggest that it has failed. The US is no longer a federal republic as far as I am concerned.

As for Libertarianism, I think it is more of a moral stance than a method of governing. Most libertarians I know want a federal republic.
0
Reply
Male 40,734
"CAN`Tnadian! lolz! Excellent one @CrakrJak! I see what you`re doing there :-)

[quote]I think if you believe in God you are a simpleton easily brainwashed by ridiculous nonsense.[/quote]
Heck no! He`s NEVER insulting...

[quote]Please look up what a troll actually means.[/quote]
"Mary was raped against her will."
You mean like that? Inflamitory statements you KNOW are false? YOU said you`re read the Bible, but cannot remember something accounted in TWO Gospels? A whole chapter is devoted to that story ffs! Mr.Expert!

[quote]my link to factual irrefutable data[/quote]
LOLZ! Half the time your link proves OUR SIDE @HG! Well about 1/3 really...

0
Reply
Male 2,357
[quote]You didn`t make any reason against the great unending tyranny of seatbelts.[/quote]
I hadn`t realized we were discussing seatbelts, though I am happy to explain why seatbelt laws should not exist.

Considering individual liberty as the most important concern, any piece of legislation that restricts the action of an individual should be limited to actions that directly infringe upon the rights of others. Now, regarding your seatbelt quip, let us imagine that you do not wear your seatbelt. Does this action infringe upon the rights of me, or my fellow citizen? It does not; therefore, any attempt to regulate it is an infringement on your liberty.

[quote]There is a Federal government that is above and beyond "the states" and governs them accordingly.[/quote]
Are you familiar with the concept of a federal republic? As in, the system we supposedly enjoy currently?
0
Reply
Male 5,811
@HA: So it is the Constitution then? I`ll pose a simple question to you then. Doesn`t the Constitution provide an illusion of freedom? Allow me to explain: There can really only be two possible explanations: Either the Constitution failed and has not provided the freedom it was intended to and was thus ignored, or, the Constitution and the principles contained in it have provided the framework for the current state of affairs i.e. the Constitution aided in fostering the considerable federal involvement/oversight present today. In either of these outcomes, the Constitution itself is really to blame either in inefficacy or collusion. You could blame the people for not sticking to the principles of the Constitution, but I would instead see it from the point of view that the principles of the Constitution itself are not "freedom" per se, but rather support of a bunch of smaller versions of control and non-freedom.
0
Reply
Female 2,228
You didn`t make any reason against the great unending tyranny of seatbelts. You mouthed a empty platitude devoid of meaning and shrugged off the heart of the matter with blithe ignorance.

"The states"? There is a Federal government that is above and beyond "the states" and governs them accordingly. Deal with it.

And this is why Libertarianism is always going to be a political afterthought in our or any country, it makes no damn sense.

0
Reply
Male 2,357
[quote]A Libertarian who believes in anything even remotely like a Constitution, is a living contradiction.[/quote]
Please expand upon this idea. I await the opportunity to improve your understanding of Libertarianism.
0
Reply
Male 2,357
[quote]Well darn Skippy, you`re right, if you want to smoke while bathing in a tub full of gasoline who am I to stop you?[/quote]
Exactly. I am glad we have reached this consensus.

[quote]o great prophet of Libertarianism, here to convert the heathen[/quote]
I`m honored by your kind words.

[quote]A failed State is a Libertarian paradise.[/quote]
Not at all. I believe you are confusing the terms Libertarian and Anarchist; they are different words for a reason, afterall. A failed state it quite literally the opposite of a Libertarian paradise. A healthy, thriving, and successful republic (including the states) is essential for such an ideology.

[quote]Libertarians would be aligned Chaotic Neutral[/quote]
Lovely, and certainly amusing, but this is merely a distraction. It does not appear to offer any discussable content to our conversation.
0
Reply
Female 2,228
A Libertarian who believes in anything even remotely like a Constitution, is a living contradiction.
0
Reply
Male 2,357
[quote]the distinction you make between accepting state control vs. federal control as permissible would be the constitution itself?[/quote]
I think that`s a fair way to look at it. Rather, the interpretation of the Constitution. My interpretation from reading it, the Federalist papers, and the personal correspondence of Thomas Jefferson seems to conflict with most modern interpretations.
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@patchgrabber

So, to try and further explain my admittedly complicated point of view, let`s consider my personal decisions if legislation was proposed regulating gun ownership.

Regardless of if it was federal or state, I would not advocate it; I would vote against any such attempts. To me, either attempt is still an attempt to exercise control over others (which I personally find sinful). The difference is regarding who has the authority.

So, if the law was proposed at the federal level, I would not support it for two reasons: I do not accept the federal government as having the Constitutional authority to do so; and, I do not agree with the premise.

Now, if the law was proposed at the state level, I would only have one reason to vote against it: I do not agree with the premise. Unlike the federal government, the state has the Constitutional authority to create such legislation.
0
Reply
Female 2,228
If politics was Dungeons and Dragons, and we were all characters, Libertarians would be aligned Chaotic Neutral, defined as: "Driven completely by a desire for "Freedom", sometimes they`re just plain nuts."
0
Reply
Male 5,811
@HA: You did a good job of explaining it, and (correct me if I`m wrong) the distinction you make between accepting state control vs. federal control as permissible would be the constitution itself?
0
Reply
Female 2,228
Well darn Skippy, you`re right, if you want to smoke while bathing in a tub full of gasoline who am I to stop you?

But let`s get down to the nitty gritty here, o great prophet of Libertarianism, here to convert the heathen. Why is any State at all, period, better than a failed State? A failed State is a Libertarian paradise.
0
Reply
Male 2,357
[quote]But...don`t you advocate state control? Isn`t that just tyranny and control but at a smaller level?[/quote]
Yes, and, depending on the state`s actions, possibly yes. This is a complicated thing to explain (though I will try), and it is the reason I typically suggest that I am a "Constitutional Libertarian" versus a full-blooded Libertarian.

I think the best way to explain it is via example, so let`s consider gun control. I consider any effort to regulate the OWNERSHIP of guns to be wrong. Afterall, simple ownership of a gun does not infringe on the rights of others. The law should be "it is illegal to use said gun to infringe on the rights of others"...

This next part is where I differ from most; I consider the state to have the authority to do so. I don`t agree with the notion nor do I like it, but I accept it as permissible.
0
Reply
Male 2,357
[quote]Don`t you have seatbelts somewhere you need to be protesting...or something?[/quote]
It is of no concern whether the brothers walk as friends or enemies; if it is the cliff they walk to, the so shall they both fall.

But sincerely, congratulations on the valiant effort to distract yourself from the argument at hand. The ignorant are those who fail to understand anothers point of view. The stupid are those who try not to.
0
Reply
Male 5,811
[quote]Yet, you are obivious to the fact that you fight for the same outcome: control over others.[/quote]
But...don`t you advocate state control? Isn`t that just tyranny and control but at a smaller level?
0
Reply
Female 2,228
"Yet, you are oblivious to the fact that you fight for the same outcome: control over others."

Don`t you have seatbelts somewhere you need to be protesting...or something?

Also, I hear Somalia is lovely this time of year, book your trip now.
0
Reply
Male 1,365
I suggest CrakGod
0
Reply
Male 2,357
[quote]Reps have degenerated mightily since the days of Lincoln[/quote]
At the end of the day, such categorizations as Republican and Democrat are meaningless in the context of liberty. A much broader interpretation finds that there are only two groups: those who wish to control others; and those who do not.

Unfortunately, the vast majority of Democrats and Republicans fall into the former category. They wish to control the person you love, how you treat your own body, what you buy, the words you say, and so on and so forth.

Somehow, a great many of you have been led astray. You continue to point your finger at each other with claims of being partisan, brainwashed, and evil. Yet, you are obivious to the fact that you fight for the same outcome: control over others.
0
Reply
Male 4,745
HolyGod:
"Debating 5Cats sometimes makes me feel like I`m in a twilight zone episode."
----------

I hear you on that one. That group has such a backward way of thinking, you`d think the Internet had somehow connected to the 1940`s.

One thing I can tell you is, it doesn`t matter how much proof you offer them, they refuse to see the light. They have been so badly brainwashed that they are unable to let their minds think outside of what they`ve been told. It is a very sad thing, but a fact folks like us must accept.

When you say "the sky is blue" and they say "no it isn`t, it`s green", what are you supposed to do? You try telling them to look up but they insist that there is no need to look up. They insist they are right, the sky is green and there is no way they are going to even consider your proof.

I`ll tell you, if I hadn`t met folks like this in real life, I`d have thought it was all an act.
0
Reply
Female 2,228
*Finishes yet another dainty cup of Andy`s tears*

Come down off your pseudo high horse jr, you lost that privilege the second you responded to this with, "Well so they hate black people, you really think that lil ol thang is gonna deter voters in `14"?

I maintain what I`ve always said, Reps have degenerated mightily since the days of Lincoln, becoming brainless, heartless and spineless. You`re ethical jellyfish.
0
Reply
Female 2,761
We should come up with a cute nickname for craker and HG like bradelina

0
Reply
Male 5,811
[quote]CrakrJ & HolyG need to get a room.
There`s an obvious bromance going on there.[/quote]
I smell sitcom! ;-)
0
Reply
Male 2,669
Actually, I`m surprised CrakrJak spelled all the words on his sign correctly. Good for you!
0
Reply
Male 7,378
That`s because I call you a racist. Nothing can be said in support of this sign but you`ve found a way. This sign is indefensible. With freedom of speech comes responsibility. You cannot yell fire in a crowded theater nor can you threaten the presidents life. This doesn`t represent freedom of speech, it represents hate. Small minded ignorant hate. You`re well familiar with that.
0
Reply
Male 10,338
Yeah HG. When things get heated, you sometimes stray into the insult zone.

You aren`t the worst, but you do it.

The only one I insult, is Madest lol.
0
Reply
Male 9,742
Bakcagain21

" No evidence no fact just an emotional diatribe that`s an insult."

He knows what I`m talking about. I`m not going to search for posts from 3 months ago for backup.

Basically it went like this:

I compared Reagan`s first term unemployment to Obama`s. I linked to data.

He said unemployment went down after Reagan was elected but before he took office because the market "reacts to good news".

I linked to data that showed there was NO change in unemployment in that period.

He came back with the fact that he saw something different on TV when he was a kid in the 80s so my data wasn`t reliable.

My data BTW was the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
0
Reply
Male 39,893

CrakrJ & HolyG need to get a room.
There`s an obvious bromance going on there.
0
Reply
Male 9,742
Bakcagain21

"But you are in no way superior to them, you`re just on a different bias. Accept that, you do not have a moral high ground."

That`s cool. You`re welcome to your opinion. However you are viewing this in a devolved state and I absolutely agree with you. The fact that i currently don`t have high ground to people like them is why I`m no longer getting into it with them. They drag me down.

3 months ago I was diligent about not engaging in personal attacks and backing up every statement with links to credible support. However, after an election season of just being blown away about the absolute inability to agree on the most base, simple reality I`ve kinda lost it.

The abundance of moronic debates I get in with these two dilute the other discussions I`ve had with lots of other people on here, many of which I don`t always agree with, but respect, particularly the libertarians.
0
Reply
Male 560
@HG see "I`ve never lost a debate to you. The only reason you think so is because in your monkey brain the fact that you remember seeing something on TV 30 years ago trumps my link to factual irrefutable data. You can never lose." No evidence no fact just an emotional diatribe that`s an insult.

Before you mark me off as some wannabe right wing nut on AIB. I`ve find Crarjaks stuff so insane before I cloned an account and kept it going for over a hundred messages mocking the stuff he comes out with(got m banhammered it did :( ) But you are in no way superior to them, you`re just on a different bias. Accept that, you do not have a moral high ground.
0
Reply
Male 9,742
CrakrJak

"HG: you`ve been a troll the minute you chose your nickname here at IAB, quit denying it."

I think if you believe in God you are a simpleton easily brainwashed by ridiculous nonsense. That is my honest opinion. It doesn`t make me a troll simply because you or 5Cats disagree. Please look up what a troll actually means.

"You and I have engaged in debate and I don`t believe I`ve ever insulted you. Biggest whopper of a lie that you`ve claimed to date"

That was directed at Andrew, not you or 5Cats. I know I`ve insulted you two because intellectual discourse fails to the point of frustration and lashing out. Which is why I`m not doing it anymore.

"you`ve lost the debate"

I`ve never lost a debate to you. The only reason you think so is because in your monkey brain the fact that you remember seeing something on TV 30 years ago trumps my link to factual irrefutable data. You can never lose.
0
Reply
Male 2,216
popular speech rarely needs protection. My family didn`t serve this country so you COULDN`T speak freely. I just disagree.
0
Reply
Male 17,511
5Cats: I`m glad you`re a CANadian, instead of the other CAN`Tnadians that often frequent IAB. ;-)
0
Reply
Male 17,511
Wow, seems I missed most of this commentary.

HG: you`ve been a troll the minute you chose your nickname here at IAB, quit denying it.

`The Joke` is you trying to claim that you`re not a troll. I`ve seen you make one outrageous claim after another, then later back peddle from them and offer lame interpretations to wiggle your way out.

[quote]You and I have engaged in debate and I don`t believe I`ve ever insulted you.[/quote]

Biggest whopper of a lie that you`ve claimed to date. You do it most frequently when you`ve lost the debate.
0
Reply
Male 40,734
Thanks @Bakcagain21!
Your support, unlike @Byfield`s, is both well spoken and makes sense!

I do have my embarassing moments! But I`ve never pretended to be other than what I am: a right leaning, right thinking, Canadian!

I claim to be both honest and consistant. Neither says anything negative about anyone! We can all be both, and still disagree, eh?
0
Reply
Male 560
@HolyGod a lot of your arguments are based on emotion and stereotyping of the other side. Take the article about the sign, you flat out refuse someone would be so messed up they create a racial imagery to damage republicans but have no issue imagining a republican is obviously sooo racist.

And with the arguing without insulting, you always do it. You`ve decided who agress with you and who disagrees strongly and then you don`t consider you need to keep any form of civility with them. Now you just vanished from conversation. Granted I know this is the internet but you act like a petulant child when people disagree with you. (yes I know Crakrjak and 5Cats also have their moments , but you claim to be better then them...)
0
Reply
Male 40,734
Oops: Important @HG claim:
ALL spending before Oct 2009 was 100% BUSH`S responsibility and should NOT be counted against Obama`s increase of the ongoing US Federal Debt.

THAT is what the whole debate was about.

[quote]This is the very last comment I will ever make directed to you or something you say.[/quote]
Riiight.. just like @jamie76...

I won`t provoke you @HG, but neither will I ignore your ongoing campaign of lies. If you choose to continue responding in this thread, that`s fair too!

[quote]Remember you told me you weren`t going to talk to me anymore...[/quote]
More lies! I said I`d ignore you if you were rude. I wouldn`t respond "unless you were polite".

Then I gave you a second chance! Silly me, the ABUSER never stops... he just finds ways to sugar-coat his abuse...

I am free to respond AS I CHOOSE and do not require your "permission to speak"...
0
Reply
Male 40,734
@Byfield: When @HG claimed Bush was responsible for ALL DEBT incurred in the "2009" budget? That debate?
#1 When I said "all provisions made in the `lame duck` period need to be RE-signed by Obama" like the GM Bailout? (the first one, under TARP)
I was correct.
#2 When I said Obama`s 2010 Budget (passed in Feb 2009) INCLUDED immediate spending which added to the US Debt?
I was correct.
#3 Whn I proved that Obama ALSO signed the "Bush 2009" budget in March 2009 and ADDED over 400 billion in NEW spending? And 7,000+ "earmarks"?
I was correct.
#4 When I demonstrated through LOGIC that Jan 20 is the "fairest" point to hold a PotUS accountable? Keeping in mind that ALL PotUS MUST be held to the SAME measure?
He agreed!

Tell me again who got "whooped"?
And he insulted me in about 50% of his posts...

When YOU OWN IAB? I`ll listen to you about the catgirls...
0
Reply
Male 1,196
Yeah it`s racist, but it`s still pretty funny.
0
Reply
Male 9,742
5Cats

Remember you told me you weren`t going to talk to me anymore and then started back up on the very next post? Let me help you out with that. This is the very last comment I will ever make directed to you or something you say. Best of luck.
0
Reply
Male 9,742
Byfield

Thank you for helping me not feel crazy. It`s nice to occasionally get third party impartial perspective. Debating 5Cats sometimes makes me feel like I`m in a twilight zone episode.
0
Reply
Male 40,734
[quote]I don`t think I`ve ever insulted OO, MG, or AJ either[/quote]

OMG! The lies! You talk to your Mama with that lieing mouth? Never bro? O`really?

History Lesson: I informend @HG a while back that I was tired of his insults & abusive attitude...

[quote]3. You`re a sad little man with mental problems...[/quote]
See?
Anyhow I told him that if he wasn`t polite I would ignore him, and then I did so!

This is KINDERGARDEN politics you`re using @HG!

[quote]I have no interest in wasting time with him anymore.[/quote]
You told me I can`t, so... well I never wanted to anyhow!

Holy Ghod! Have some self respect dude!
0
Reply
Male 464
5cats - HolyGod whooped you in that. Not only did he not resort to belittling (or lying), but he also clearly and categorically stated his reasoning.

And seriously, stop it with that anime crap.
0
Reply
Male 9,742
5Cats

"I`ve proven to you that Obama signed "Bush`s" budget just like I clamed... and you went DEAD SILENT! LOZ! Yes, I`m openly laughing at you! "

I never said he didn`t. I know he did. I told you that before you posted the Wikipedia quote. I read that Wikipedia article and posted quotes from it weeks earlier in a debate with CJ. This is why I don`t feel like talking to you anymore. It is a waste of time. You think you "caught" me in something and now I`d have to go back and find quotes from posts months ago to prove you wrong. Total waste of time. You win.
0
Reply
Male 40,734
@Andrew155: He `could do it` but he chooses NOT to. Sad eh?

[quote]Nobody writes the words...[/quote]
Oh yes, @HG! Yes Democrats DO write those words! In a dozen or more "false flag" events where someone even KILLED himself in an effort to "blame the Repubs" (or TeaParty _W_ ) for it! It happens a LOT more than we know about.
Cut their own face...
Sent hatemail to themself...

I keep showing you examples, but you keep beating that dead horse! Typical!
0
Reply
Male 9,742
Andrew155

"Holy, you can debate without insulting."

Absolutely. You and I have engaged in debate and I don`t believe I`ve ever insulted you. I also frequently debate Cajun247 without insulting. I respect both of you even if I disagree with your opinions. I don`t think I`ve ever insulted OO, MG, or AJ either despite almost always disagreeing with them.

5Cats has just pushed me enough where I no longer feel like attempting to be civil. I have no interest in wasting time with him anymore. We have a difference of opinion on what reality is.
0
Reply
Male 40,734
"anime animal porn"

Another lie @HG? That`s ALL you got is lies? You`re lieing AGAIN and I`ve caught you, AGAIN!
Point to ONE "animal p0rn" pic I`ve posted! I would have been banhammered in seconds!

"fun to destroy in political debates"

Revisionist history = backbone of liberal logic!

I`ve proven to you that Obama signed "Bush`s" budget just like I clamed... and you went DEAD SILENT! LOZ! Yes, I`m openly laughing at you!

"Feel free to not bother me anymore. Eh?"

Oooo! Repeating back what I`ve ALREADY told you? So smrt! Well, you`re paraphrasing I guess...

>2. I don`t care what the guy`s explanation was.<

TRANSLATION: I don`t care what the facts are! It must be part of a vast right wing conspiracy! ALL racists are Republicans!

(hint: YOU said those exact words @HG, it`s a direct quote...)
0
Reply
Male 2,578
Holy, you can debate without insulting.
0
Reply
Male 10,338
It`s drating stupid, but it is also protected free speech.
0
Reply
Male 9,742
5Cats

"@HolyGod: Came out of your own "troll hole" to admit you were fooled by a DEMOCRAT`s racist sign? LOLZ!"

1. I don`t buy it. Period. Nobody writes the words HANG and OBAMA in big red letters next to a noose with tiny IN THERE meaning it as a positive message.

2. I don`t care what the guy`s explanation was. My guess is he meant it the way everyone takes it but after it became a big deal and the press found him he decided he better try to act like he wasn`t a bigot for the cameras.

3. You`re a sad little man with mental problems that is a joke to 95% of the people on here. You can "LOLZ" and post your anime animal porn all you want. I don`t really care about you or your thoughts. You were fun to destroy in political debates for a while but the election is over. Feel free to not bother me anymore. Eh?
0
Reply
Male 977
As long as adults insist on being children, we`re never really going to grasp that whole freedom thing as it is... sooooooooo... quit while you`re ahead?
0
Reply
Male 3,745
this has got to be the most racist, yet funny, thing i have seen in a LONG time.

coming from a black guy.
0
Reply
Male 40,734
Honest Questions for OP: @daverazor:

#1 Did you submit this a while ago and it just got posted now?
#2 Did you KNOW it was an Obama supporter who put the sign up?

Troll post is trolling someone, I`m just wondering WHO!

(still laughing at @QZ! and @HG!)
0
Reply
Male 40,734
@HolyGod: Came out of your own "troll hole" to admit you were fooled by a DEMOCRAT`s racist sign? LOLZ!
Hey @HG! I found proof that Obama signed the 2008 budget (with `amendments`) in March of 2009, eh? (posted it elsewhere). Want to lecture me some more how it`s "Bush`s Fault"???

@Andrew155: At the rate Obama spends? it`ll be 22 trillion...

@nubblins: yes there is a story behind it! It`s made by an Obama supporter who wants to drum up some "artificial controverse".
Look how well it works! @QueenZira is apopleptic!!

If It Gets You Out To Vote... FOR OBAMA! The the guy is happy.

@carmium: I`d say the DEMOCRAT who made this has crossed the line! A different line perhaps, but he`s over it!
0
Reply
Male 40,734
Sign`s Maker is PRO-OBAMA!
VIDEO & story at the linky. It`s pre-election, it`s from October.

He`s PRO-OBAMA! I repeat: PRO-OBAMA!

Another "false flag"! How many in a row will it take before @QueenZira and her "ilk" stop "crying wolf"??

Thomas Savka made it.

A few clikcs and PRESTO! The truth is known!

But lib-tards? They JUMP to conclusions BOOM! and if it "sounds true" that good enough for them!

REPEAT: HE SUPPORTS OBAMA and is deliberatly trying to make people think "the other side" is racist.
0
Reply
Male 2,578
Queen, your attempt to be clever and witty fails.

It`s interesting because this is how you describe yourself, "Friendly, always ready to have an intelligent conversation about just about everything, tolerant philosophic viewpoint."

Which is literally the opposite of what you`re doing here.
0
Reply
Male 185
It was "earned" by the blood of our forefathers. If you`re an American, it`s your right. He`s not yelling fire in a crowded theatre. He`s showing his great distain for that idiot you people put back in the White House.
0
Reply
Female 2,228
Andy, your tears are nutritious and refreshing. Don`t stop now, keep `em coming!
0
Reply
Male 2,578
QueenZira, people like you are to blame for the toxic environment of today. They exist on both sides. You represent one of them. Congrats.
0
Reply
Female 6,381
Most countries draw the line on free speech when a person advocates violence or makes a credible threat against someone. I`d say the neanderthal who created this is walking the line.
0
Reply
Female 1,803
Ah, Wisconsin. Home of cheese, beer, Packers, Ed Gein and Jeffrey Dahmer.

I keed, I keed! Our lovely neighbor to the east.
0
Reply
Male 2,841
"Makes you wonder if free speech is a right or should be earned."

Typical elitist attitude right thurr.
0
Reply
Female 2,228
Brainflash! I shall dub it, "Homo Republicanus into Pachydermis Contemporaneous."
0
Reply
Male 39,893

[quote]"Free Speech Or Misuse Of The Right" [/quote] It`s usually called "misuse" when you don`t agree with free speech.

[quote]"Makes you wonder if free speech is a right or should be earned" [/quote] How do you know he wasn`t in the military and earned it?

"FREEDOM" means you have the right to be stupid.
0
Reply
Female 2,228



Pictorial representation of the GOP depicting the changes taking place from the days of Abraham Lincoln to the present day.
0
Reply
Female 1,743
Is there a story behind this?
0
Reply
Male 2,578
It`s straight up douchery, just ignore it. It`s really easy.

Free speech is obviously a right and the idea that you have to "earn" it is exceedingly Authoritarian.

HolyGod, you really think this picture you see here will be an issue for 2014? I think people will be more concerned about the 19 trillion in debt we will have, rather than thinking "But they hate the black man!".
0
Reply
Male 53
"Makes you wonder if free speech is a right or should be earned."
Maybe people should earn the right to eat too. Maybe babies should earn their right to live or be euthanized. Rights were earned and fought for by your fathers and grandfathers so that you wouldn`t have to.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
No, trolling, outrageous, but they have a right to say it.
0
Reply
Male 9,742
Keep it up rednecks. I beg you. Will just make the 2014 congressional elections better.
0
Reply
Male 427
"There`s no such thing as earning a right. That makes it a privilege. "
yeah, that`s why the tag says "is a right OR should be earned"
0
Reply
Male 22
There`s no such thing as earning a right. That makes it a privilege.
0
Reply
Male 198
Link: Free Speech Or Misuse Of The Right? [Pic] [Rate Link] - Just an average sign in Northern Wisconsin. Makes you wonder if free speech is a right or should be earned.
0
Reply