Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Did you not read what he said? He said he doesn't agree with making fun of disabled people or the weak but thinks we should have the freedom to say what we please. I like how you decry bullying in one sentence and then hint around that Americans are wusses in the next.
I read what he said, especially the part where he contradicted himself completely. You cannot agree to unlimited freedom of speech and abhor making fun of disabled or weak people. Pick one.....
You must be wusses if you consider "implying you're wusses" as bullying.
I read what he said, especially the part where he contradicted himself completely. You cannot agree to unlimited freedom of speech and abhor making fun of disabled or weak people. Pick one.....
You must be wusses if you consider "implying you're wusses" as bullying.
I don't need to pick one!
Its a very simple concept. I don't need to agree with everything everyone says all the time in order to agree with the concept of free speech. I honestly don't get what it is so difficult to understand here.
So, its okay for you to name call but no one else? More hypocrisy.
It's fun to whip out a ranking, but the ranking is irrelevant unless there's an explanation of how it was derived. For example, I looked at the Cato PDF. There's long discussion of "things they looked at," but then at the end they just slap a number on each country with no explanation of how that number was derived. So, for example, "personal freedom" comprises 50 different measures but they just tell you the end result.
Also, even if you want to use that as gospel, it should be noted that most of those types of ranking agree that under the 8 years of Obama the US has dropped in any freedom ranking.
It's fun to whip out a ranking, but the ranking is irrelevant unless there's an explanation of how it was derived. For example, I looked at the Cato PDF. There's long discussion of "things they looked at," but then at the end they just slap a number on each country with no explanation of how that number was derived. So, for example, "personal freedom" comprises 50 different measures but they just tell you the end result.
Also, even if you want to use that as gospel, it should be noted that most of those types of ranking agree that under the 8 years of Obama the US has dropped in any freedom ranking.
Yeah; whipped out a ranking er,....actually three rankings and those rankings were derived by independent orgs. nothing like the "Canada has no freedom of speech" spouted by some on here, eh?
I understand why you wouldn't agree with the rankings......you're an American.
Not biting on the partisan political silliness regarding Obama.
Yeah; whipped out a ranking er,....actually three rankings and those rankings were derived by independent orgs. nothing like the "Canada has no freedom of speech" spouted by some on here, eh?
I understand why you wouldn't agree with the rankings......you're an American.
Not biting on the partisan political silliness regarding Obama.
I think it's marvelous that you read what I wrote and your comeback is "wait, I have three rankings with the same problem, so now it's solved!!" Is that a Canadian thing? Or just a liberal thing, since you don't even like what your own rankings say about Obama?
Its a very simple concept. I don't need to agree with everything everyone says all the time in order to agree with the concept of free speech. I honestly don't get what it is so difficult to understand here.
So, its okay for you to name call but no one else? More hypocrisy.
Not so simple is it? Your speech is limited in any number of ways other than simply those described as "hate speech", "inciting to cause harm" or "fighting words".
And where did anyone call me a name that I objected to? Would that not be a requirement of the description of being a hypocrite?
Finally I point out this decision causing such superior mindedness on the part of Americans is one taken by an arbitration panel of one province in Canada. Sort of like the Mississippi law still on the books that stipulates:
"Using profanity in front of two or more persons in a public place might land you in the county jail for up to 30 days. Or you could pay a hefty fine to the state swear jar, no more than $100.
While this law appears to be a direct assault on the First Amendment, it's thought to have been conceived in order to protect the public." My goodness, imagine that!
Finally I point out this decision causing such superior mindedness on the part of Americans is one taken by an arbitration panel of one province in Canada. Sort of like the Mississippi law still on the books that stipulates
It's true, guys, Quebec is like the Mississippi of Canada.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Only---
