What is the price of free speech?

This is an Admin / Moderator NO GO ZONE. You're on your own.

Moderator: Team

j-c-c
Guru
Guru
Posts: 4269
Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2016 9:03 pm

Re: What is the price of free speech?

Post by j-c-c » Wed Oct 03, 2018 1:26 pm

1989TransAm wrote:
Wed Oct 03, 2018 1:05 pm
No answer on the corroborating evidence I see. You have reduced yourself to name calling. :D
"Reducing" myself, if indeed so, is still way above most replies here.

And correct me if I mistaken, this was not a criminal trial, it was only an interview to decide the character and integrity of the nominee, you can conjure any standard you want regarding any evidence to make that decision, like the color of the drapes, the music playing on the stereo, the brand of beer, the description of the bathroom, a shower or a tub, etc. Knock your self out.

I believe the lady, and I have little respect for the hot head nominee, period, character matters, corroborating evidence available or not.

rebelrouser
Pro
Pro
Posts: 425
Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2015 2:25 pm

Re: What is the price of free speech?

Post by rebelrouser » Wed Oct 03, 2018 2:19 pm

j-c-c wrote:
Wed Oct 03, 2018 12:52 pm
1989TransAm wrote:
Wed Oct 03, 2018 12:45 pm
rebelrouser wrote:
Wed Oct 03, 2018 9:50 am
First you would have to prove what she said was false.
Example A. So if a woman accuses a man of anything it is up to him to prove otherwise. She does not have to prove a damn thing according to these lefties. Also according to rebelrouser it is the White mans fault. [-X
BS
I never said it's a white man's fault. She took a lie detector test, and passed, all he did was rant and rave. When asked directly if he wanted an FBI investigation to clear his name he said I will do whatever the committee wants, side stepping the issue. She said she wanted one to prove what she said was true. Evidence has come in from several sources that he lied about the extant of his drinking issues. He lied in his first hearing when he became a circuit court judge about stolen documents and the Bush administration. He was voted down his first attempt to become a judge, by republicans no less. Kavanaugh has a lot more problems than feeling women up when he gets drunk.

j-c-c
Guru
Guru
Posts: 4269
Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2016 9:03 pm

Re: What is the price of free speech?

Post by j-c-c » Wed Oct 03, 2018 2:53 pm

{quote}

She does not have to prove a damn thing according to these lefties. Also according to rebelrouser it is the White mans fault. [-X
[/quote]

BS



Also to be clear, maybe I should have red-lighted more to be better state my position.

engineczar
Guru
Guru
Posts: 1393
Joined: Mon Jul 26, 2004 10:47 am
Location: Dubois, Wy.

Re: What is the price of free speech?

Post by engineczar » Wed Oct 03, 2018 3:02 pm

rebelrouser wrote:
Wed Oct 03, 2018 2:19 pm
Evidence has come in from several sources that he lied about the extant of his drinking issues.
A better choice for him would have been to become a member of the Choom Gang. Then all would be ignored.

1989TransAm
Guru
Guru
Posts: 9383
Joined: Thu Feb 15, 2007 8:43 pm
Location: Cypress, California

Re: What is the price of free speech?

Post by 1989TransAm » Wed Oct 03, 2018 3:10 pm

j-c-c wrote:
Wed Oct 03, 2018 1:26 pm
1989TransAm wrote:
Wed Oct 03, 2018 1:05 pm
No answer on the corroborating evidence I see. You have reduced yourself to name calling. :D
"Reducing" myself, if indeed so, is still way above most replies here.

And correct me if I mistaken, this was not a criminal trial, it was only an interview to decide the character and integrity of the nominee, you can conjure any standard you want regarding any evidence to make that decision, like the color of the drapes, the music playing on the stereo, the brand of beer, the description of the bathroom, a shower or a tub, etc. Knock your self out.

I believe the lady, and I have little respect for the hot head nominee, period, character matters, corroborating evidence available or not.
So in your opinion not even a smidgeon of jurisprudence is required. You would be fine with the Salem witch trials.

RevTheory
Guru
Guru
Posts: 4999
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2014 6:45 am

Re: What is the price of free speech?

Post by RevTheory » Wed Oct 03, 2018 3:18 pm

1989TransAm wrote:
Wed Oct 03, 2018 3:10 pm
So in your opinion not even a smidgeon of jurisprudence is required. You would be fine with the Salem witch trials.
If it resists President Trump, of course he would! That's the new norm for progressives- by hook or by crook.

exhaustgases
Guru
Guru
Posts: 4247
Joined: Sun Oct 06, 2013 9:03 pm

Re: What is the price of free speech?

Post by exhaustgases » Wed Oct 03, 2018 3:54 pm

rebelrouser wrote:
Wed Oct 03, 2018 2:19 pm
j-c-c wrote:
Wed Oct 03, 2018 12:52 pm
1989TransAm wrote:
Wed Oct 03, 2018 12:45 pm


Example A. So if a woman accuses a man of anything it is up to him to prove otherwise. She does not have to prove a damn thing according to these lefties. Also according to rebelrouser it is the White mans fault. [-X
BS
I never said it's a white man's fault. She took a lie detector test, and passed, all he did was rant and rave. When asked directly if he wanted an FBI investigation to clear his name he said I will do whatever the committee wants, side stepping the issue. She said she wanted one to prove what she said was true. Evidence has come in from several sources that he lied about the extant of his drinking issues. He lied in his first hearing when he became a circuit court judge about stolen documents and the Bush administration. He was voted down his first attempt to become a judge, by republicans no less. Kavanaugh has a lot more problems than feeling women up when he gets drunk.
And she is an expert at passing lie detector tests. She is a PHd and has cia connections as well. But as demoncrats we have to BELIEVE that is the command, just always BELIEVE any and all party lies.

j-c-c
Guru
Guru
Posts: 4269
Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2016 9:03 pm

Re: What is the price of free speech?

Post by j-c-c » Wed Oct 03, 2018 4:13 pm

1989TransAm wrote:
Wed Oct 03, 2018 3:10 pm
j-c-c wrote:
Wed Oct 03, 2018 1:26 pm
1989TransAm wrote:
Wed Oct 03, 2018 1:05 pm
No answer on the corroborating evidence I see. You have reduced yourself to name calling. :D
"Reducing" myself, if indeed so, is still way above most replies here.

And correct me if I mistaken, this was not a criminal trial, it was only an interview to decide the character and integrity of the nominee, you can conjure any standard you want regarding any evidence to make that decision, like the color of the drapes, the music playing on the stereo, the brand of beer, the description of the bathroom, a shower or a tub, etc. Knock your self out.

I believe the lady, and I have little respect for the hot head nominee, period, character matters, corroborating evidence available or not.
So in your opinion not even a smidgeon of jurisprudence is required. You would be fine with the Salem witch trials.
Did I say that?

Your take then was the Salem witch trails then was a job interview? :roll:

exhaustgases
Guru
Guru
Posts: 4247
Joined: Sun Oct 06, 2013 9:03 pm

Re: What is the price of free speech?

Post by exhaustgases » Thu Oct 04, 2018 3:53 pm

The womans ex or ex's will prove that lies were told as well as other info. And yes the Kavanaugh trial was just like a witch trial. We have to BELIEVE a woman especially a demoncrat woman, never ever can they lie. Yes they are god like personages that are considered perfect to a demoncrat. So now do we know why the word democrat was chosen for that ultra wicked evil political party? It is just like all the other corruption that we have tossed in our faces now.

David Redszus
Guru
Guru
Posts: 6644
Joined: Tue Nov 27, 2007 9:27 am
Location: Chicago
Contact:

Re: What is the price of free speech?

Post by David Redszus » Thu Oct 04, 2018 4:03 pm

rebelrouser wrote:
Wed Oct 03, 2018 9:50 am
First you would have to prove what she said was false. You will never do that. FBI investigation has been hamstrung by Trump. No FBI agent will put their career on the line to dig into the allegations of several people not just the one, and draw the wrath of Trump.
Are you nuts?
Trump extended to time window when he did not have to do any such thing.

Trump directed the FBI to investigate; he was not obligated to do so and the FBI is not obligated to do so.

Hamstrung? You really are nuts. Or blind. Open your eyes.

86_regal
Pro
Pro
Posts: 306
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2015 12:02 pm

Re: What is the price of free speech?

Post by 86_regal » Fri Oct 05, 2018 2:05 pm

David Redszus wrote:
Tue Oct 02, 2018 11:51 pm
The First Amendment allows unlimited free speech on the floor of Congress.

Courts have not allowed free speech with regard to child pornography or the incitation of violence.
We also have slander and libel laws that seek to guide free speech.

But what about intentional false accusations of crimes and behavior for political purposes?

How many years in jail should Christine Ford spend in jail for her lies? Not just for perjury, but for
malicious personal damage.

If a woman makes an unproven, untruthful charge against the character and actions of a man, would
10 years in the slammer be adequate? Should it be more?
Although I understand the basic premise of your first statement, it contains a major flaw which I believe needs to be addressed.

The First amendment does not "Allow" the freedom of speech.
As stated in the Bill of rights:

"Congress shall make no law,... abridging the freedom of speech..."

The MOST important term in this proclamation is the word "the" preceding freedom of speech. That word confirms the drafters conceded that the existence of this individual human right preceded the Bill of Rights under the doctrine of NATURAL Law.
In other words, the drafters wrote it this way to annuciate that such rights, created by NATURE, NOT others, CANNOT be abridged, perverted or compromised BY OTHERS.

Viewing the existence of this freedom through this lens should quickly undermine the "need" or application of law(s) which infringe it.

I cannot possibly imagine the need or concern of PROHIBITTING free expression of child pornography since that VERY EXPRESSION can be used as EVIDENCE, or at very least probable cause, to convict those committing acts of sexual assault. I say, LET THEM post that shit, pictures, admissions of such acts, etc.. It would increase the chances of catching AND convicting these demented people.

Slander and Libel laws are ridiculous as well. Anyone with half brain is aware that ALL the smack talk in the world doesn't mean shit without EVIDENCE! The existence of such laws, quite frankly, is offensive to me because it suggests that "we" can't discern fact from fiction ourselves...

At this point, it's important to understand why such "exceptions" exist. It's certainly NOT to protect children, or the "little guy" or those who were slandered. It's because those who write law PRACTICE LAW. What better way is there to secure a "good living" for those in the legal community than to pass MORE LAW?

That said, onto your last question.

Regarding false allegations which have serious legal ramifications such as rape. If the legal system were SERIOUS about mitigating such activity and administering justice EFFICIENTLY, they would require the plaintiff to pay ALL legal expenses PRIVATELY, not just attorney fees but ALSO ALL COURT fees and administrative costs. There's no reason you or I should have to subsidize this nonsense, ONLY the one bringing the claim.

This would do MULTIPLE things, it would virtually eliminate frivolous claims and/or those with little or no evidence to substantiate them. It would incentivize people to be MORE ACCOUNTABLE for their OWN actions AND It would also put immense pressure on the justice system and the "legal community" to REDUCE the costs of administering justice because those costs would no longer be invisible to those benefitting from it.

However, as said earlier, why would those in Congress,
ALL those in State Senate and Assemblies and ALL of the stuffed shirts flooding our dockets want that?...

1989TransAm
Guru
Guru
Posts: 9383
Joined: Thu Feb 15, 2007 8:43 pm
Location: Cypress, California

Re: What is the price of free speech?

Post by 1989TransAm » Fri Oct 05, 2018 2:23 pm

j-c-c wrote:
Wed Oct 03, 2018 4:13 pm
1989TransAm wrote:
Wed Oct 03, 2018 3:10 pm
j-c-c wrote:
Wed Oct 03, 2018 1:26 pm


"Reducing" myself, if indeed so, is still way above most replies here.

And correct me if I mistaken, this was not a criminal trial, it was only an interview to decide the character and integrity of the nominee, you can conjure any standard you want regarding any evidence to make that decision, like the color of the drapes, the music playing on the stereo, the brand of beer, the description of the bathroom, a shower or a tub, etc. Knock your self out.

I believe the lady, and I have little respect for the hot head nominee, period, character matters, corroborating evidence available or not.
So in your opinion not even a smidgeon of jurisprudence is required. You would be fine with the Salem witch trials.
Did I say that?

Your take then was the Salem witch trails then was a job interview? :roll:
A job interview. I would say it is far more than that. You are using liberal dimoKKKRAT talking points. rebelrouser believes in this case you are guilty until proven innocent. You chimed right in agreeing with the primise. [-X

j-c-c
Guru
Guru
Posts: 4269
Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2016 9:03 pm

Re: What is the price of free speech?

Post by j-c-c » Fri Oct 05, 2018 2:23 pm

86_regal wrote:
Fri Oct 05, 2018 2:05 pm
David Redszus wrote:
Tue Oct 02, 2018 11:51 pm
The First Amendment allows unlimited free speech on the floor of Congress.

Courts have not allowed free speech with regard to child pornography or the incitation of violence.
We also have slander and libel laws that seek to guide free speech.

But what about intentional false accusations of crimes and behavior for political purposes?

How many years in jail should Christine Ford spend in jail for her lies? Not just for perjury, but for
malicious personal damage.

If a woman makes an unproven, untruthful charge against the character and actions of a man, would
10 years in the slammer be adequate? Should it be more?
Although I understand the basic premise of your first statement, it contains a major flaw which I believe needs to be addressed.

The First amendment does not "Allow" the freedom of speech.
As stated in the Bill of rights:

"Congress shall make no law,... abridging the freedom of speech..."

The MOST important term in this proclamation is the word "the" preceding freedom of speech. That word confirms the drafters conceded that the existence of this individual human right preceded the Bill of Rights under the doctrine of NATURAL Law.
In other words, the drafters wrote it this way to annuciate that such rights, created by NATURE, NOT others, CANNOT be abridged, perverted or compromised BY OTHERS.

Viewing the existence of this freedom through this lens should quickly undermine the "need" or application of law(s) which infringe it.

I cannot possibly imagine the need or concern of PROHIBITTING free expression of child pornography since that VERY EXPRESSION can be used as EVIDENCE, or at very least probable cause, to convict those committing acts of sexual assault. I say, LET THEM post that shit, pictures, admissions of such acts, etc.. It would increase the chances of catching AND convicting these demented people.

Slander and Libel laws are ridiculous as well. Anyone with half brain is aware that ALL the smack talk in the world doesn't mean shit without EVIDENCE! The existence of such laws, quite frankly, is offensive to me because it suggests that "we" can't discern fact from fiction ourselves...

At this point, it's important to understand why such "exceptions" exist. It's certainly NOT to protect children, or the "little guy" or those who were slandered. It's because those who write law PRACTICE LAW. What better way is there to secure a "good living" for those in the legal community than to pass MORE LAW?

That said, onto your last question.

Regarding false allegations which have serious legal ramifications such as rape. If the legal system were SERIOUS about mitigating such activity and administering justice EFFICIENTLY, they would require the plaintiff to pay ALL legal expenses PRIVATELY, not just attorney fees but ALSO ALL COURT fees and administrative costs. There's no reason you or I should have to subsidize this nonsense, ONLY the one bringing the claim.

This would do MULTIPLE things, it would virtually eliminate frivolous claims and/or those with little or no evidence to substantiate them. It would incentivize people to be MORE ACCOUNTABLE for their OWN actions AND It would also put immense pressure on the justice system and the "legal community" to REDUCE the costs of administering justice because those costs would no longer be invisible to those benefitting from it.

However, as said earlier, why would those in Congress,
ALL those in State Senate and Assemblies and ALL of the stuffed shirts flooding our dockets want that?...

Lot to unpack here, but I'll focus on one extremely important aspect yo touched on, making plaintiffs pay for legal expenses. That is not thought out well IMO. A core element under our system is we are all equals in the face of the law. Injecting one's individual resources as a varible to tamp down the legal process, would basically mean DT would beat nearly every single member here in any court proceedings ( te he has more wealth). The state has rightfully assumed for the benefit of allr the enforcement of laws. usually requested/enacted by at least the majority, and the financial burden and the task of prosecution. The real problem is, the state has nearly unlimited resources compared to the defendant (innonce until proven guilty), and to try and balance things for a merely "accused" person, there are a number requirements to keep the state from becoming out of control in performing its assigned duties, like Miranda rights, right to adequate consul, discovery, etc.

I have no problem leaving the system nearly as is, its proven, its known to everybody, its far from perfect, but its better then almost all others, and it has a last check, nirmally twelve citizens to decide (jury nullification), and if they are dutiful, and caring about their duty, it works. I am not ready to experiment quickly here.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification
Last edited by j-c-c on Fri Oct 05, 2018 2:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.

gmrocket
Guru
Guru
Posts: 2729
Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2008 6:40 pm
Location: Grimsby Ontario

Re: What is the price of free speech?

Post by gmrocket » Fri Oct 05, 2018 2:30 pm

Her "story" was so full of holes it's amazing. She is one full on liar and when she asked the dems to not go public with her identity....her cover was blown!

Even the crazy dems knew this was just nutty talk from a kook. But they used her for all she was worth and the wait proved very damaging. Why wait months?

So she then was forced to continue the big lie...it should have died when she said her bestest long life friend, WHO WAS WITH HER that night, said she had no recollection of being there..so she used her friend, but didn't tell her at the time what happened ? And still didn't tell her even after she went public with the story?

What a load of Horshyt!

She was talking like a child , tilting her head, making gestures and body language of a liar...vocal fry...she couldn't even talk from memory,,she was reading notes!!

Didn't remember the year, day, time, area, address, or house discription..don't remember how she got there, or got home.

She should be investigated to the fullest extent of the law..no matter how long it takes. She only hurt REAL assault victims.

gmrocket
Guru
Guru
Posts: 2729
Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2008 6:40 pm
Location: Grimsby Ontario

Re: What is the price of free speech?

Post by gmrocket » Fri Oct 05, 2018 2:34 pm

j-c-c wrote:
Wed Oct 03, 2018 1:26 pm
1989TransAm wrote:
Wed Oct 03, 2018 1:05 pm
No answer on the corroborating evidence I see. You have reduced yourself to name calling. :D
"Reducing" myself, if indeed so, is still way above most replies here.

And correct me if I mistaken, this was not a criminal trial, it was only an interview to decide the character and integrity of the nominee, you can conjure any standard you want regarding any evidence to make that decision, like the color of the drapes, the music playing on the stereo, the brand of beer, the description of the bathroom, a shower or a tub, etc. Knock your self out.

I believe the lady, and I have little respect for the hot head nominee, period, character matters, corroborating evidence available or not.
You should believe the lady..100%

It's the easiest thing to do...no thinking, no internal demons to fight with, no guilt to deal with...ya, you should believe her.
Last edited by gmrocket on Fri Oct 05, 2018 2:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Post Reply