Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'News / Current Events' started by Crabtownboy, Jan 14, 2011.
The writer of this editorial from SCnow is correct.
The left leaning media is starting their run up for censorship and draconian limits on free speech.
But only on speech that libs, leftists and demoncrats don't like.
Crabbie, you need to reread your signature line:
"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety deserve neither Liberty nor Safety" Ben Franklin
This is an "unsigned" editiorial. The person who wrote it obviously is spouting liberal bias. But, doesn't have enough conviction to put their name to it.
Civility is in the eye of the recipeint.
I have been battered, at time, pretty thoroughly right here on The baptist Board. Been treated like a pariah and herectic, and sometime worse.
Speaking the Truth loudly on a Street Corner is *NOT* civil to the sinner!
So, just how far to you want to go with a legislated "Civility Code"?
Especially when these knee-jerk laws never take context into account?
Rhetoric had nothing to do with the shooting, CTB.
And you are dishonest for implying it did.
I loved this line from Crabby's opinion piece:
"The Constitution might protect U.S. citizens’ free speech..."
The Constitution MIGHT protect free speech?
This is where Crabby Magoo and the rest of the leftists want to take us.
He may be. One can talk abiut it all they wish.
It still had less than nothing to do with the arizona shooting.
Banging the rhetoric drum is a silly thing.
This clearly didn't have anything to do with the political rhetoric.
Frankly I don't know who needs to wake up anymore. Other than overusing pejorative political punchlines to score empty points (i.e. "we need to wake up!") we need an honest conversation.
Everyone is awake, maybe that's the problem.
Seems I remember back during the investigations by Ken Starr that a bald headed talking head for the administration openly called for somebody to shoot off his (Starr's) kneecaps.
Not much nuance there - unless you were/are a democrat.
Bottom line: get the plank out of your own eye before trying to get the speck of dust out of another's!:BangHead::BangHead:
Be interesting to see the slippery stutter step spin on this idea.
"The Constitution might protect U.S. citizens’ free speech, but we should all learn from early life lessons that our statements carry consequences. Words can and do hurt."
>The Constitution MIGHT protect free speech?
Baptists MIGHT learn to read text in context but it isn't likely.
Please, provide us with the context then.
The Constitution theoretically protects or was intended to protect or was written to protect
Lose your thought and couldn't finish the sentence? :smilewinkgrin:
I agree. Rather than "throwing out" the liberal left, let's be civil and "vote them out" on November 6, 2012.