calfoxwc Posted February 13, 2016 Report Share Posted February 13, 2016 http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2016/02/12/preacher-hit-with-disorderly-conduct-citation-by-college-campus-its-the-reason-officer-gives-that-has-the-video-going-viral/ feign fān/ verb pretend to be affected by (a feeling, state, or injury). "she feigned nervousness" synonyms: simulate, fake, sham, affect, give the appearance of, make a pretense ofMore archaic invent (a story or excuse). archaic indulge in pretense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted February 13, 2016 Author Report Share Posted February 13, 2016 but.... if you are ON the left.... you can say any damn thing you want. http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2016/02/12/pro-choice-staffer-of-major-college-allegedly-offers-to-rape-a-pro-lifers-relatives-school-takes-no-action-and-we-have-deleted-comments/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clevfan4life Posted February 13, 2016 Report Share Posted February 13, 2016 Some key paradigms of our existence still seem to escape you Cal. You compare an argument between two people on some stupid twitter shit, with a preacher berating students as they walk by minding their own business with shouts of you can't keep your legs closed etc, etc....he knew none of these people, he was just out creating a disturbance. That's not protected free speech. And you can bet your hypocritical reconstructed knee that if some satanic rager positioned himself on the sidewalk to a church right wehre people had to walk past him to go in..and berated them on a bright sunday morning in June about how they were directly propping up a pedo mill by attending these services....cops would show and ask him to stop and if he didn't he'd be taken downtown. And not a peep from the likes of you if you, especially if that was infront of your church. Imagine him holding up photo's of graphic child pornography and yelling that's what's going on in that church. Oh the hypocritical outrage right? If one of those students had snapped and attacked that preacher and beat his head into the cement doing brain damage, would you accept that as a natural potential consequence of free speech. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted February 13, 2016 Report Share Posted February 13, 2016 Actually I don't care about this case but I do not think that inflammatory speech is just grounds for physical violence. There might be some sort of mitigation in court but nope, I ain't buying it. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clevfan4life Posted February 13, 2016 Report Share Posted February 13, 2016 Actually I don't care about this case but I do not think that inflammatory speech is just grounds for physical violence. There might be some sort of mitigation in court but nope, I ain't buying it. WSS If i was a dad who went to see his daughter at college and we took a walk, and that "preacher" (i use that term loosely cause he aint' no man of no god), directed some of those comments at me or my daughter....that video would have been of the police arresting me. I honestly see no cause for any modicum of restraint to someone who takes it upon himself to conduct themselves in public like that. You can have your free speech "IF" and only "IF" people are allowed to pummel you for it. You can't claim free speech but then expect to have protections against assault. This is just the world of grown ass men. If you're grown ass enough to talk some shit, be prepared to back it up when someone's had enough and don't go spilling out of your bleeding vagina when it happens. I don't understand people's need to talk shit to other people they don't know. If i'm walking to my classroom why should i be subjected to someone's insults or vulgar shouts? If they wanna do it fine, but why should they be then protected from harm? It's like you guys wanna say what you wanna say but you're not grown up enough to accept that there's sometimes some real consequences to saying/doing what you feel like. BUt if you want a civil society that isn't a street fight around every corner, than people have to be accept some limitations to what they say in public. Now if it's your own medium..than you should be able to say whatever you want. If you have your own radio or tv show, than people can choose to listen or not. But protecting the speech of people who go out in public and subject unsuspecting folk to their stupid bullshit? And that standard goes for occupy wall st people too who some of them would get in the face of whatever suit they saw not knowing anything about him. Protesting something is ok, but directly targeting people you know nothing about and assuming they're part of whatever subset of society you're annoyed with that day...that's horseshit and shouldn't be allowed otherwise things are gonna get ugly. Like i always thought to myself i can't wait for the day someone pulls into an abortion clinic and protesters start banging on their car and throwing shit on it....i hope said person guns it. There's no reason anybody should have to tolerate that for the simple act of pulling into a parking lot. If you got in the way of their car as it pulled forward that's on you. Same thing with these black lives matter protesters who blocked random cars in teh middle of the road and are seemingly berating any white faces they see in cars, wtf is that? Hit the gas, it's on them if they get in the way. I do seem to remember you guys being irritated with some video's iike that.....but obviously don't hear much about that exact same behavior when it happens outside of abortion clinics and it's white people in the street. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted February 13, 2016 Report Share Posted February 13, 2016 preachers on campus were annoying as shit Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted February 13, 2016 Report Share Posted February 13, 2016 If i was a dad who went to see his daughter at college and we took a walk, and that "preacher" (i use that term loosely cause he aint' no man of no god), directed some of those comments at me or my daughter....that video would have been of the police arresting me. I honestly see no cause for any modicum of restraint to someone who takes it upon himself to conduct themselves in public like that. You can have your free speech "IF" and only "IF" people are allowed to pummel you for it. You can't claim free speech but then expect to have protections against assault. This is just the world of grown ass men. If you're grown ass enough to talk some shit, be prepared to back it up when someone's had enough and don't go spilling out of your bleeding vagina when it happens. I don't understand people's need to talk shit to other people they don't know. If i'm walking to my classroom why should i be subjected to someone's insults or vulgar shouts? If they wanna do it fine, but why should they be then protected from harm? It's like you guys wanna say what you wanna say but you're not grown up enough to accept that there's sometimes some real consequences to saying/doing what you feel like. BUt if you want a civil society that isn't a street fight around every corner, than people have to be accept some limitations to what they say in public. Now if it's your own medium..than you should be able to say whatever you want. If you have your own radio or tv show, than people can choose to listen or not. But protecting the speech of people who go out in public and subject unsuspecting folk to their stupid bullshit? And that standard goes for occupy wall st people too who some of them would get in the face of whatever suit they saw not knowing anything about him. Protesting something is ok, but directly targeting people you know nothing about and assuming they're part of whatever subset of society you're annoyed with that day...that's horseshit and shouldn't be allowed otherwise things are gonna get ugly. Like i always thought to myself i can't wait for the day someone pulls into an abortion clinic and protesters start banging on their car and throwing shit on it....i hope said person guns it. There's no reason anybody should have to tolerate that for the simple act of pulling into a parking lot. If you got in the way of their car as it pulled forward that's on you. Same thing with these black lives matter protesters who blocked random cars in teh middle of the road and are seemingly berating any white faces they see in cars, wtf is that? Hit the gas, it's on them if they get in the way. I do seem to remember you guys being irritated with some video's iike that.....but obviously don't hear much about that exact same behavior when it happens outside of abortion clinics and it's white people in the street. Oh no abortion clinics. Tell you what tough guy when those white mobs burned down the entire neighborhood, kill a few people smash windows and loot businesses up and down the street from the abortion clinic call me. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieHardBrownsFan Posted February 13, 2016 Report Share Posted February 13, 2016 preachers on campus were annoying as shit Did it cause microaggression? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldBrownsFan Posted February 13, 2016 Report Share Posted February 13, 2016 http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2016/02/12/preacher-hit-with-disorderly-conduct-citation-by-college-campus-its-the-reason-officer-gives-that-has-the-video-going-viral/ feign fān/ verb pretend to be affected by (a feeling, state, or injury). "she feigned nervousness" synonyms: simulate, fake, sham, affect, give the appearance of, make a pretense ofMore archaic invent (a story or excuse). archaic indulge in pretense. Thankful for the wisdom of the founding fathers of this country and the constitution and bill of rights. Why is it that it is almost always liberals who have problems with our constitution? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LogicIsForSquares Posted February 13, 2016 Report Share Posted February 13, 2016 Thankful for the wisdom of the founding fathers of this country and the constitution and bill of rights. Why is it that it is almost always liberals who have problems with our constitution? Depends on what the issue is. There are members of the GOP who would be o.k. with the feds being able to mount a camera in my living room just in case I might commit a crime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted February 13, 2016 Report Share Posted February 13, 2016 Depends on what the issue is. There are members of the GOP who would be o.k. with the feds being able to mount a camera in my living room just in case I might commit a crime. How hot is your wife and how often does she walk around butt naked in the house? WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LogicIsForSquares Posted February 13, 2016 Report Share Posted February 13, 2016 How hot is your wife and how often does she walk around butt naked in the house? WSS Consult the NSA agent who probably has my laptop camera hacked haha. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted February 14, 2016 Report Share Posted February 14, 2016 Did it cause microaggression? It caused annoyance and comedy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clevfan4life Posted February 14, 2016 Report Share Posted February 14, 2016 Oh no abortion clinics. Tell you what tough guy when those white mobs burned down the entire neighborhood, kill a few people smash windows and loot businesses up and down the street from the abortion clinic call me. WSS explain this post please, it made no sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted February 14, 2016 Report Share Posted February 14, 2016 explain this post please, it made no sense. Oh please. .. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted February 14, 2016 Author Report Share Posted February 14, 2016 I didn't compare, Cleve... just gave two little examples of liberal hypocrisy. It's easy to twist the intent and substance of posts, so you can rail with your contradicting hypotheticals... but it just produces an invalid emotional knee jerk counter-argument. You were doing better to have "kept me on ignore". ha. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbluhm86 Posted February 14, 2016 Report Share Posted February 14, 2016 I didn't compare, Cleve... just gave two little examples of liberal hypocrisy. It's easy to twist the intent and substance of posts, so you can rail with your contradicting hypotheticals... but it just produces an invalid emotional knee jerk counter-argument. You were doing better to have "kept me on ignore". ha. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clevfan4life Posted February 14, 2016 Report Share Posted February 14, 2016 I didn't compare, Cleve... just gave two little examples of liberal hypocrisy. Do you then write words down on the screen without giving them much thought as to what you're doing? Because you did compare them. You said in one case the left has no problem with someone saying some heinous shit and in the other they do. You compared the two situations as equitable. Obviously if I knew someone that was telling people online that if you disagree with abortion in rape cases lemme come over and rape your wife/daughter and see if your opinion changes, I wouldn't associate with that person. I would put them on "ignore", right? You can't do that in public though can you? That was my point and that was the correction I made to your flawed analysis. I see your habit of flawed and or woefully inaccurate postulates is going as strong as ever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted February 14, 2016 Author Report Share Posted February 14, 2016 No, I did not. I gave separate examples of the duplicity of liberal cowards like you who never did put me on ignore, but said they did. you and woody can't let other people simply have their opinions, and just disagree. Ya just have to personally insult them every time. And you do it on the other board, too. Personal UNWARRANTED attacks are the ignorant fools' port in any storm. and our country is headed for a storm. The examples aren't the same, but just similar enough to show hypocrisy of liberals. Comparing them would fail, but the basic similarities show hypocrisy. idiot. Are you working on eventually being clevepeckerhead to steal attention from woodpecker? It isn't about me. It isn't about you....it's about our country and where we are dangerously headed, and why. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clevfan4life Posted February 15, 2016 Report Share Posted February 15, 2016 No, I did not. I gave separate examples of the duplicity of liberal cowards So you're comparing and contrasting said examples. This isn't hard dude. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted February 16, 2016 Author Report Share Posted February 16, 2016 comparing would be analyzing the similarities and differences between the two. I did not do that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tour2ma Posted February 16, 2016 Report Share Posted February 16, 2016 ... and "coward" is not an insult? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted February 16, 2016 Report Share Posted February 16, 2016 The fundamental problem here (apart from cal's admitted aversion to critical thinking), is the idea among some americans that freedom of speech, as enshrined in the first (?) amendment, means freedom to be a dick. I feel like that should be the first amendment. Don't be a dick. Don't go around offering to rape people. Don't hurl abuse at people whose lifestyles you don't like. Just stop being a dick, and hiding behind the free speech strawman. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LogicIsForSquares Posted February 16, 2016 Report Share Posted February 16, 2016 The fundamental problem here (apart from cal's admitted aversion to critical thinking), is the idea among some americans that freedom of speech, as enshrined in the first (?) amendment, means freedom to be a dick. I feel like that should be the first amendment. Don't be a dick. Don't go around offering to rape people. Don't hurl abuse at people whose lifestyles you don't like. Just stop being a dick, and hiding behind the free speech strawman. Well I think dummies don't consider that freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequence. They think they are being persecuted if everyone else decides to use their freedom of speech to call the dummies out and likely damage any income they are getting from the public. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted February 16, 2016 Report Share Posted February 16, 2016 The fundamental problem here (apart from cal's admitted aversion to critical thinking), is the idea among some americans that freedom of speech, as enshrined in the first (?) amendment, means freedom to be a dick. I feel like that should be the first amendment. Don't be a dick. Don't go around offering to rape people. Don't hurl abuse at people whose lifestyles you don't like. Just stop being a dick, and hiding behind the free speech strawman. Of course you are correct Chris. Frankly I don't believe we were ever meant to have freedom of speech. I understand the reason they wrote the amendment, during revolutionary times those speaking out against the king would likely windup behind bars or worse. But today speaking out in many ways against the sacred cows of the power structure will still get you in hot water even if there is no specific jail time. As with most freedoms we love to talk about them unless they somehow offend us. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted February 17, 2016 Author Report Share Posted February 17, 2016 Posted Today, 04:37 AM ... and "coward" is not an insult? Tour ********************************************* Not unwarranted in "self-defense" verbally speaking. If someone punches you, and you punch back to stop them from hitting you again, who is at fault for starting it? Do you think it's you, or the other guy? Libs don't understand self-defense is okay, unless it's THEM that needs defending. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted February 17, 2016 Report Share Posted February 17, 2016 He does this a lot. No matter the context, YOU always insult HIM first. Everything he says is justified, its just self defense. Everything YOU say is hate speech, personal insults, etc. Same song and dance. Every time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted February 17, 2016 Author Report Share Posted February 17, 2016 I'm consistent - it's principle. There are all sorts of folks who surely are justified in disagreeing with me, and they don't go with the insult retorts - in fits of emotional knee jerky like you do. When I see a pattern of personal attacking/insulting, instead of replying to the op at all... which is what you nearly always? do.... you end up a woodpecker. Yes, you are a liberal extremist that has no idea about letting other people have opinions different from yours, and you have no inkling of accountability for your own actions, woody. You do it to yourself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted February 17, 2016 Report Share Posted February 17, 2016 Hahahahaha Liberal extremist? "no idea about letting other people have opinions different from yours " Hahahaha Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted February 17, 2016 Author Report Share Posted February 17, 2016 yes I think you are a liberal extremist, but it's tough to have much evidence that is concrete, since as steve mentioned elsewhere... you usual comment on a subject is: "ur a idiot" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.