Third Party & Independents Archives

Good Enough For Thee, But Not For Me

Is conservative free speech banned in America?

Wayne Allyn Root, an evangelist, entrepreneur, and Libertarian-conservative Republican, asks the question:

Is there free speech left in America…if you’re a conservative or Christian?

Second-year defensive back Don Jones is reported to have said things like, "OMG" and "horrible" in a post on the twitter social media website when he witnessed Michael Sam kiss his significant other on national tv.

Don Jones was then fined and suspended for his opinion.

But the Dolphins responded quickly, ordering Jones to pay an undisclosed fine and barring him from team activities until he finishes "training for his recent comments made on social media."
Training?! Is Don Jones a second-grader who said a dirty word, or an adult expressing an opinion?

Don Jones expressed an impulsive opinion of what he witnessed. He didn't think Michael Sam's actions had a place on the venue he was watching. Dolphins general manager Dennis Hickey expressed his disappointment.

"I was made aware of it and I was disappointed in those comments," Hickey said Saturday night. "That's not what we stand for as an organization."

So, Don Jones is to suffer fines, suspension, and forced to undergo brainwashing for his near-spontanious reaction that "offended" a segment of the population. My question, and perhaps Wayne Allen Root's question, is, "When will Michael Sam be fined, suspended, and forced to undergo brainwashing for his spontanious reaction that offended a much larger segment of the population, including children? Hmmm? It seems tolerance on the left is a one-way street.

Wayne Allyn Root:

Just realize this cuts both ways. How will liberals feel when their views get them fined, suspended and fired? What's good for the goose is good for the gander, as they say. This is not a road we want to head down.

This road is becoming well traveled. Wayne Allyn Root points out how Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich was forced to resign for writing a check. Eich simply helped supporters of a cause he believed in to pay the bills associated with their political agenda. He didn't attack anyone sitting in a wheelchair. He didn't run down the street busting out windows. He didn't shit on anyone's police car. Yet he was forced to resign from the business he co-founded! Yes, he did build that!

Why aren't conservatives allowed to force their employees who support gay marrage to resign? Hmmm?
Let me take a stab at answering that.

Democratics use the group-think stratagy to generate enough votes to keep them in power. When racism was considered normal Democratics supported racism. When that fell out of favor they were against racism. They've beat the racism issue to death and it doesn't carry the weight it used to so they need another group to take up the slack. The current flavor of the month is homosexuals. Once they've used up the homosexual cause they'll have to move on to another. Illegal immigrants are queued up, but they can't vote yet. They need to be citizens first. When they've used them up it will be just a matter of time when Democratics will come full circle again and support christians and conservatives in their effort to stay in power. The Democratic's politics are like the weather in Chicago. If you don't like it just wait a while. It will change.

What it all boils down to is, It's not about individual rights to a Democratic. It's about their own personal power and using groups against each other to keep it.

Posted by Weary_Willie at May 14, 2014 6:52 PM
Comment #378371

The last couple of years of a lame duck President’s run serves to bring ire out for many folks.

One would hope this url is just from right wing banter leading up to the midterms. But, groups have conducted gov’t in far worse ways so it’s easy for one to believe the info is true.

IMO, releasing one murderer back into society is justification for impeachment.

The MSM has given the dems at least six months of cover by covering little other than gay this and that.

Otherwise - - -

Posted by: roy ellis at May 14, 2014 8:53 PM
Comment #378377


The headline to the article that you linked to is highly misleading. The “released” aliens were not released from removal actions but simply allowed bond while awaiting disposition of their immigration removal case. It is not a situation of “catch and release.” It would be like expressing outrage that general DUI offenders were being granted bond while awaiting trial.

The article obviously is an attempt to portray the Obama administration as weak on enforcement of removal actions for undocumented criminal offenders. That is far from the case as any fair commentator would admit. The Obama administration has concentrated on removal of criminal offender undocumented aliens. That fact is evidenced by an 87% increase in formal removals (deportations) of criminal offender aliens since Obama took office in 2009.

Posted by: Rich at May 15, 2014 7:49 AM
Comment #378378

Given the fact that the procedure had to be renamed makes the whole process suspect.

Posted by: Weary Willie at May 15, 2014 8:56 AM
Comment #378385

“Given the fact that the procedure had to be renamed makes the whole process suspect.”

I presume that you mean “removal” rather than “deportation.” Well, the terminology change is hardly new. It changed in 1996 with the passage of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (“IIRIRA”). So, for the past 18 years, deportation has been formally referred to as removal.

Posted by: Rich at May 15, 2014 4:28 PM
Comment #378400

Fining a public (sports) figure for disparaging comments when that person is bound by contract to maintain a positive public image IS NOT “religious” freedom or free speech. The NFL can protect it’s image, it can’t force people to be straight, or progressive, or conservativ. Religious freedom is the right to practice YOUR religion without retribution. Personal freedom includes the right to live YOUR life with YOUR sexual orientation without retribution. It IS NOT the right to be disrespectful of others in public. It IS NOT the right to be biggoted against people because they offended YOUR sensibilites (Think “I won’t serve you coffee -with your gay husband- (wearing a cross). I’m a -christian- (satanist) and that’s heresy”). It is ABSOLUTELY NOT the right to force others to conform and act to YOUR subsect “moralities” or traditions. But it is reasonable and necessary to expect people to conform to a level of social and commercial contract. E.g. Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

The “christian” fundamentalists want the government to prevent gay marriage. I.e. take away other individuals right to their “pursuit of happiness”. You are against gay marriage? Then don’t marry someone of your sex. The religious right tries to remind the left of the two edged sword. I’d like to remind them of the same thing. The left wants to protect human freedoms from governemnt intrustion and indiviuals prejudices while using the government for the benefit of all. The right wants “freedom”, except when people don’t act the way they want and they want the government to make war and protect corporations over people. I choose the former.

Posted by: Dave at May 16, 2014 10:50 AM
Comment #378401

There is a difference between “freedom of speech” and “freedom from consequences of speech” that a lot of people do not grasp. You sign a contract you can say what you want however the stipulations of the contract control the consequences of what you say.

Democrats (not Democratics, that’s not a word except in Weary Willie land) advocate for the solution to problems that they perceive as an injustice. They will continue to approach this in the same manner as they have in the past. What some people perceive as the use of causes to make changes that corrects injustices but in their mind turn that into “they are just divisive” are terribly misinformed.

Posted by: Speak4all at May 16, 2014 11:16 AM
Comment #378404

I’ve heard of people who haven’t signed anything getting fired for saying something on social media. The “contract” aspect of this is fraudulent. We have a contract called the U.S. Constitution. It starts by saying “We The People”. It describes how the government is made up of the people. To separate the people from the government is fraudulent also. To say an employer can limit a person’s freedom of speech goes against the first amendment because that employer is just as much a part of the government as a congressman or the president.

It’s when you get a consensus of the people is when government acts. Today’s media, in violation of the first amendment, is building a perceived consensus against people who speak of their own personal beliefs. When that perception reaches a point that government acts, it violates the first amendment. The constitution suffers. The first amendment suffers. Freedom suffers.

When that happens we all will lose. When the govenrment and power wins it will not care if you’re queer or straight, man or woman, christian or athiest. We all will lose.

Posted by: Weary Willie at May 16, 2014 2:37 PM
Comment #378405

None of you have answered my question.

Why can’t a conservative fire employees who believe in gay marrage?

Posted by: Weary Willie at May 16, 2014 2:40 PM
Comment #378406

Willie is absolutely correct. We all lose when government power overcomes individual rights.

“Don’t bother trying to make sense of what beliefs are permitted and which ones will get you strung up in the town square. Our ideological overlords have created a minefield of inconsistency. While criticizing Islam is intolerant, insulting Christianity is sport. Ayaan Hirsi Ali is persona non grata at Brandeis University for attacking the prophet Mohammed. But Richard Dawkins describes the Old Testament God as “a misogynistic … sadomasochistic … malevolent bully” and the mob yawns. Bill Maher calls the same God a “psychotic mass murderer” and there are no boycott demands of the high-profile liberals who traffic his HBO show.

The self-serving capriciousness is crazy. In March, University of California-Santa Barbara women’s studies professor Mireille Miller-Young attacked a 16-year-old holding an anti-abortion sign in the campus’ “free speech zone” (formerly known as America). Though she was charged with theft, battery and vandalism, Miller-Young remains unrepentant and still has her job. But Mozilla’s Brendan Eich gave a private donation to an anti-gay marriage initiative six years ago and was ordered to recant his beliefs. When he wouldn’t, he was forced to resign from the company he helped found.

Got that? A college educator with the right opinions can attack a high school student and keep her job. A corporate executive with the wrong opinions loses his for making a campaign donation. Something is very wrong here.

As the mob gleefully destroys people’s lives, its members haven’t stopped to ask themselves a basic question: What happens when they come for me? If history is any guide, that’s how these things usually end.”

Posted by: Royal Flush at May 16, 2014 2:56 PM
Comment #378407

Isn’t it interesting that most liberals proclaim MMGW as settled science, and yet deny the fact that human life begins at conception is settled science. Oh, My…their hypocritical slips are showing.

Posted by: Royal Flush at May 16, 2014 3:08 PM
Comment #378409

The entire premise of this thread is absurd.

Please show us where either of these people are actually under indictment by the government for their speech.

The First Amendment is about the relationship between the government and the people. The government cannot just make a law to change this, and the conservatives would be howling if they did.

The fellow at Mozilla answers to his board of directors, and the football player answers to his team who answers to the NFL, who answers to it’s sponsors.

If these guys feel they have been wronged by the process, by all means, let them sue for redress.

They have that right as well.


Posted by: Rocky Marks at May 16, 2014 7:50 PM
Comment #378448

What’s stopping the fed from prosecuting them, Rocky Marks? The law to do so is already on the books, thanks to the Democratics and Obama.

New ‘hate speech’ attack targets Internet

Barack Obama, when he was new in the Oval Office, signed a “hate crimes” law that created a two-tier system of punishment, increasing the punishment for a Christian pastor who attacked a homosexual but not for a homosexual who attacked a Christian pastor.
The law cracks down on any acts that could be linked to criticism of homosexuality or even the “perception” of homosexuality. Obama boasted of his accomplishment.
The original law, called the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act, was signed by Obama when Democrats strategically attached it to a “must-pass” $680 billion defense-appropriations bill in 2009.
American Family Association President Tim Wildmon warned the new law “creates a kind of caste system in law enforcement, where the perverse thing is that people who engage in nonnormative sexual behavior will have more legal protection than heterosexuals. This kind of inequality before the law is simply un-American.”
He pointed out that the legislation also creates possible situations in which pastors could be arrested if their sermons on sexuality can be linked in even the remotest way to acts of violence. For example, if someone hears the biblical description of homosexuality as a sin and uses that message as a reason for acting.
The Alliance Defending Freedom also blasted the “hate-crimes” bill, calling it “another nail in the coffin of the First Amendment.”

Posted by: Weary Willie at May 17, 2014 10:55 AM
Comment #378449

Weary, I have to agree with you on this one. What is happening is neither dem nor republican but made up of a daft media not looking at things perspectually.

It is almost like we as a “people” expect it, meaning a social televised media expects such irrationality. Like we “feeding-frenzy” such a conclusive response, whether it be the Sam issue or some other conjuctivus of social “hyper reactivity” to a socio-conundrum we as a nation are looking at with any indifference.

Poor Don Sterling, the man is absolutely going senile and our press does nothing but crucify a man who doesn’t know if he wants eggs or pancakes for dinner. Alzheimers is part of the dying human process and it’s a press who has never been through it before that pokes fun at it. My mother before she left this earth was making statements probably twice as crazy and it’s just how we die here—bananas!

Our press is acting like it is its own court and we are a nodding proletariate with a shucksy “yup” for every minute thing they are engineered to do “for” us to be a “sane” people. It is crazy that we dems supposedly have such a social responsibility and they aren’t at all democrats perpetrating this but a minority of frenzy happied individuals, vitriolic that they can react to things in such a wierdo-staunch way. It’s like a notion that this is what the left wants and that’s typically not correct. We are very civil libertarian as a body of individuals but when lumped together as a group we become this? A group of social engineers? That is not us but a notion that does not fit with our agendas.

We don’t want fairness we want money at the end of the week to spend. We too are anti-taxation and that’s probably the mote of it. I would love to say this is the democrats doing this, that would mean it is now managable, but it is its own free wheel techno-garchy that is playing the “judge” role here.

Jon stewart is not our spokesman (atheist) and Colbert just isn’t funny, we are a very different party from all of that pro-taxation sentiment that the press is propagating and summizing we are.

The Democratic party is actually very splintered into atleast 40 factions and very little to none is any of this behavior being exhibited, it’s merely a “notion” of what society expects or something that is at play here.

I have no problem with religion or freedom of assembly issues. I’m not exactly pro-bureaucracy nor pro-technocracy. This is all a televised Frankenstein creationism brought on by bimbos that assume that is what a society is—a cabal of prattlers that cannot be satiated by anything less than that ruin of an opposition that seems biased to anything “liberal”.

None of this stuff is “liberal” and I suggest they take a course in what we want to unite and understand we are actually way more tolerant than this as a people of political mindedness.

Posted by: simpleheaded at May 17, 2014 1:04 PM
Comment #378450

The media is certainly as complicit as they are one-sided. Picture the treatment of George W. Bush when he wanted to reform Social Security to give people more control over their own money. There was a relentless campaign in the media against Bush’s Social Security Reforms.
In contrast, when Obama and the Democratics proposed a government takeover of 1/6 of the economy via. health care reform nothing but praise and sunshine and cookies for the masses came from the media.

The same goes for the myriad of other scandals infecting this administration. Had George W. Bush even thought of using the IRS to limit liberal, non-profit groups from qualifying the media would have hounded the entire administration until someone, anyone was fired in disgrace. Picture the AG Gonzalez as an real life example.

I haven’t listened to the recording of what Sterling said in the privacy of his own home. I haven’t listened to it because I respect the privacy of his own home. I can only speculate as to what the context of the conversation was. Actually, I think all of us can only speculate as to what the context of the conversation was. Perhaps he didn’t want a certain black person at his games because that person was conspiring to take his team away from him. How many business owners have said, “If you don’t like the way I do business you don’t have to come in!”? People speculated that the price of the team was going to suffer terribly because of this controversy. Perhaps the controversy was manufactured for that specific purpose. Again, I can only speculate, but I cannot discount anything considering the amount of lies and deceit coming from Washington D.C. that has been rampant these last few decades.

Posted by: Weary Willie at May 17, 2014 2:23 PM
Comment #378451
New ‘hate speech’ attack targets Internet
World News Daily isn’t worth the paper it’s printed on, much less the bandwidth it wastes to promote hate and fear to the rapture waiters.


MMGW as settled science, and yet deny the fact that human life begins at conception is settled science
One IS science, AGW has a definition and overwhelming evidence. The other is nonsense because it all depends on the definition of “Human Life”; which is generally refered to in reasoned debate as the “beginning of human personhood”. And that is an opinion which is not in itself answerable by science. My opinion is that personhood occurs, i.e. the fetus has rights, when brain waves are measurable in the cerebral cortex. Before that it’s just a potential person, similar to the unused gametes discarded during menstruation or male masturbation.

Posted by: Dave at May 17, 2014 2:34 PM
Comment #378452


Privatization of SS was a tool to push more profits into the banks and place the risk onto the citizen.

Health Care is intended to address the gap in health care accessibility as well as move the cost of publicly provided emergency care into the pockets of the uninsured.

The IRS nonsense is a repeat of Faux news non-scandals and not worthy of being addressed.

And the Sterling racism being dismissed as business posturing is just nonsensical.

Oh, and your orignial constiutional contract thing is better used for Bundy and his ilk.

Posted by: Dave at May 17, 2014 2:43 PM
Comment #378454

Are you saying the Bush administration idea for privatizing SS was a good idea? At the end of the Bush administration the stock market crashed and the financial sector cratered. WAMU failed, as well as most of the investment banks, such as Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers, while others such as Merrill Lynch had to be rolled into commercial banks. If Americans had privatized SS it would have been catastrophic for everyone retiring in 2008 and 2009, and very bad for retirees in 2010.

Bush campaigned relentlessly for privatization. The more he campaigned, and the better people understood it, the more people rejected the idea. Bush was re-elected with about 50% if the popular vote. By the time he finished campaigning, approval for the privatization of SS dropped to 32%. Once the stock market crashed and the financial sector cratered, interest in the proposal dropped to zero.

I’m impressed by the sheer bankruptcy of conservative thought these days. You guys don’t want to be called Republicans or even conservatives anymore because that will make you responsible for all the bad outcomes of all those bad ideas, like privatizing SS and rejecting the science proving Global Warming. What a disaster of a political movement.

Well, you earned the disrespect, and you deserve it.

Posted by: phx8 at May 17, 2014 8:19 PM
Comment #378455


“Poor Don Sterling, the man is absolutely going senile and our press does nothing but crucify a man who doesn’t know if he wants eggs or pancakes for dinner.”

Sorry, Donald Sterling is a fool whose idiocy finally caught up to him.
He doesn’t deserve your pity.


I don’t need to listen to a recording of Sterling, taped without his knowledge, to know an idoit biggot when I hear one. He has, for years, exploited his tenents, and his employees. He may have settled with them out of court, but that doesn’t mke him any less guilty of the suits brought against him, and buying off the NAACP doesn’t make him any more worthy of the award they gave him.

I have read your link, and there is a vast differencee between the words “could” and “will”.

You are far too willing to accept conspiracy theories and opinion as fact.

Let’s just leave it as that.


Posted by: Rocky Marks at May 17, 2014 10:20 PM
Comment #378456

Ok, Dave. Attack the messenger. I shouldn’t expect anything more from you. Also, supporting your religion is being done in the other column.

phx8, we’ll really never know if it was a good idea because of the way it was portrayed in the media. Actually, I think having control over, at least some, of my retirement funds is a good thing. An individual can make intelligent decisions in spite of what the Democratics think. It took the media 4 years of constant bashing to get Bush’s ratings down that low.
Let’s not talk about bankruptcy when the Democratic party can do nothing but lie, call people names, and be outright hypocrites.

Rocky Marks, you really don’t give the NAACP much credit, do you? How do you think they would respond to your remark about being bought off? Or, are you just void of any real argument and have to resort to slander to make your point?

Yes, there is a big difference between “could” and “will”, it’s called naiveté.

Posted by: Weary Willie at May 18, 2014 10:16 AM
Comment #378457

The problem with the Bush administration was NOT the media. It was NOT the messenger. It was the message. It was the content. The Bush administration took a healthy economy with a stabilized debt and budget surpluses- they even issued cash refunds because they were collecting so much revenue!- and they cut taxes and tanked the economy.

We are seeing the exact same thing take place right now at the state level, in Kansas.

The Bush administration started an unnecessary war based on misinformation and outright lies, and then did not pay for it. No one made conservatives do this. They chose to do it.

The Bush administration sent jobs offshore and praised deregulation of the financial sector. No one made them do that. They chose to do it.

The popularity of the Bush administration started to drop after the Terry Schiavo episode. Most people forget this, but that was the moment when the American people turned against those yahoos.

The media reported what happened, even as FOX and talk radio and right wing web sites denied it. Now conservatives have no one- NO ONE- to blame but themselves.

Posted by: phx8 at May 18, 2014 2:31 PM
Comment #378458


I attacked te message. I provided facts for your top three and since what you said for the last two is so substantially illogical and bereft of facts I skipped them. You provided no back up, just anoetically repeated several of the extreme right talking points in an attempt to dismiss actual substantial pressing issues via subtextual derision.

I ask you now, directly, how your talking point “Had George W. Bush even thought of using the IRS to limit liberal, non-profit groups” has been validated by factual legally processed findings. Nope, you can’t, they didn’t. So everything after is what? I’d say everything after is noise…

I’m done with your thread. Although I would agree that my opinion of WND is an opinion. Note though that I can defend that position. Just offer me a link to debunk, it shouldn’t be difficult.

Posted by: Dave at May 18, 2014 4:23 PM
Comment #378459


It’s painfully obvious you know squat about Donald Sterling.

I would suggest you take the time to learn more before you embarass yourself.


Posted by: Rocky Marks at May 18, 2014 7:36 PM
Comment #378460

Rocky Marks, I could really not care any less about Donald Sterling. It’s only an issue used to detract from the painfully incompetent Obama administration’s many scandals.

Dave, since you didn’t really contribute anything to the conversation, see ya.

phx8, how convenient you forget about all the Democratics that supported going to war and voted to go to war. And the economy didn’t start going south until the Democratics spent 4 years telling the American people it was a bad economy when, in fact, it was an economy with growth of 4 and 5 percent.

The Democratics repeatedly and mercilessly beat the bad economy drum until it finally came true. When you say it enough times people start to believe it. It wasn’t a bad economy, it was a campaign issue. It wasn’t a lost war, it was a campaign issue.

Democratics have no morals and no standards, no sense of decency. It’s all political and all about power. They have no problem pulling the rug out from under our troops to achieve their own political objectives. Remember Harry Reid saying the war was lost? That was a disgusting example of political backstabbing.

Democratics have no problem, with the help of a complicit media, lying to the American people to achieve their own political objectives. Remember “I did not have sexual relations with that woman.”? How anyone can blindly follow these morally bankrupt and powerhungry snakes is beyond me.

Now, let’s not forget the first amendment is under assault. It wasn’t Bush who let the militant gay vote off it’s leash. It’s going to come as a real suprise to you when you will no longer be allowed to express your views here on WatchBlog, phx8. Just remember this post and the many other posts I’ve contributed concerning the loss of first amendment rights when it eventually happens to you.

Posted by: Weary Willie at May 18, 2014 11:25 PM
Comment #378461

Weary, let me get this straight, you are trying to convince us that when some business decides to fire someone it is due to something democrats have done? You try to make the case by using Fox news! the first amendment! Wayne Allen Root! seriously….

First of all there is no first amendment issue in this idiots article you have linked to. None what so ever. Yet Fox news has the temerity to try and convince conservatives otherwise! Weary, my god I am embarrassed for you. You have provided living proof of how Faux dumbs conservatives down.

Lets take a look at the silly examples Mr. Root uses to make his case that “conservative frees speech is banned in America”.

1. Don Jones is reprimanded by the NFL for spurious comments.

2. Brenden Eich is forced to resign from Mozilla by Mozilla.

That is it! Nothing about the government convicting them of anything! All about business decisions. Nothing at all about government interference in the free speech rights of Americans.

This is so nonsensical it has to be an Onion article. Yet conservatives try to justify some government fault when none exists. What in the hell is the matter with you guys?

Now, let’s not forget the first amendment is under assault.

How ironic you use a completely off base article by a blathering idiot from Faux News then tell us the first amendment is under assault without one shred of factual information to back this claim up. The corporate media has to compete with this tripe. The free press is under assault if you ask me.

What is under assault IMHO Weary is conservatives who use Faux News as a source for information. They are being assaulted and insulted by Faux.

Posted by: j2t2 at May 18, 2014 11:55 PM
Comment #378462

Come on, WW. Make some effort. Spend a few minutes reviewing the Bush administration economic performance before you start making off-the-cuff assertions. The First Bush Recession occurred a few months after he took office. Although all recessions are unpleasant, this one was about average in severity. After the First Bush Recession, the economy went through a period of recovery for @ four years. The primary driver of that recovery was debt, both public and private. Federal deficit spending stimulated the economy, but it was an unsustainable stimulus. The federal deficit and burgeoning debt was caused by tax cuts and the War in Iraq. In the private sector, debt took the form of home equity extraction. People were refinancing their mortgages. Again, this was an unsustainable form of stimulating growth.

The War in Iraq went wrong very quickly. Conquering the country was no problem. That took a month. The problems came with the occupation. It was a freakin’ disaster. We did not know what we were doing, and as a result, hundreds of thousands of Iraqis died in the ensuing violence. Please spend some time reading up on it.

The Bush administration lied to the Democrats to get their votes for the war, so the Democrats are at fault? And Democrats are the ones with no sense of decency? Hmmm. I will note about 1/3 of Democrats, primarily liberals, did not believe the lies, and voted against it.

“Militant gay vote”? Really? Bush won re-election in 2004 on a platform of God, Guns, and Gays. Conservatives thought they could keep winning elections by promoting the worst kind of bigotry and hatred of homosexuals. Maybe Democrats are guilty of protecting basic constitutional rights for minorities; in the conservative playbook, I suppose that qualifies as ‘militant.’

Posted by: phx8 at May 19, 2014 1:04 AM
Comment #378471

Is that name-calling, j2t2? Yes, I believe it is name-calling. Liberals just can’t help themselves, can they?

Let’s go down the list.

Amendment 10
Moot. Destroyed by the 17th amendment. State mandates are commonplace.

Amendment 9-
Moot. Federal government restricts land usage by farmers because of rodents, birds, other assorted wildlife. Controls private property with waterways.

Amendment 8-
Moot. Imprisoned for simple marijuana offense.

Amendment 7-
Moot. States find a person innocent. Federal government charges them again.

Amendment 6-
Moot. Accused terrorists are imprisoned, killed without a trial. Without even an explanation.

Amendment 5-
Moot. Destroyed by the 16th amendment. Citizens are compelled to give evidence against themselves by filing tax forms.

Amendment 4-
Moot. Federal officers can now write their own search warrants.

Amendment 3-
Moot. Police can now just confiscate homes by accusing owner of violating a law.

Amendment 2-
Moot. A myriad of laws infringing on the right to bear arms.

Amendment 1-
Moot. No public display of religious artifacts. No prayer in school. No discussion of religion by students. Punishment for words like “OMG” and “horrible” tolerated.

Drip. Drip. Drip.
Frog in water.
Sheep led to slaughter.

Amid continued complaints…

After receiving numerous complaints a small committee was formed

State education officials are working on creating a regulation …which were prompted by formal complaints from parents.

The FTC said the new legal actions were prompted by the receipt of more than 4,400 consumer complaints

The ordinance was also adopted, the mayor said, because of complaints town officials have received from residents

Complaints ..may result in a new Marysville law

Complaints from an East Norriton resident … has prompted the board of supervisors to propose new zoning regulations

The rule responds to complaints from consumer groups,

Since the American people believe our constitution consists only of “the right to free speech” the government has to tread lightly when restricting it. A great way to infringe on the rights of citizens is to get other citizens to do it for them. Take for instance, the illegal search of a person by employers. Just get an insurance company to raise the rates of any employer who doesn’t do a mandatory drug search on a person and, wallah!, you have a legal violation of the forth amendment.

Now, we have the “freedom from religion” group acting as the thought police limiting the display of religion in public by using the court, (that’s a part of the government) to censor religious expression/speech. We have gay activists using the court (that’s a part of the government) to censor the expression of religious beliefs.

But, hey! A little name-calling can excuse all that, right j2t2? Just call someone a blathering idiot and everything is justified.

That’s schoolyard behavour. What are you, 12?

Posted by: Weary Willie at May 19, 2014 9:19 AM
Comment #378472

Harry Reid: Vote to Amend U.S. Constitution to Limit Political Speech

Well, well, well. What have we here? What? A proposed amendment to the constitution to regulate political speech? Harry Reid wants to control the money spent on federal and state elections?

Drip. Drip. Drip.

Nedeep Nedeep.

Knee deep.

Can some liberal twisted logic explain how the federal government can regulate state elections? Are they all confederate states now? Or did the 17th amendment subjugate the states to the federal government?

Posted by: Weary Willie at May 19, 2014 10:09 AM
Comment #378473

Freedom of Speech mainly says that Congress isn’t going to be able to write laws that say, “every use of the word [n-word] will cost you a hundred dollar fine, or “Disparaging the President will be punishable by a year in jail.”

It doesn’t extend, though, to most private agreements, nor to people making decisions based on disgust with what you’re saying. Freedom of Speech is freedom from government interference, not private interference. You can’t set up a soapbox in somebody’s store, without their permission, and start loudly reading out a manifesto. There’s freedom, and then there’s imposing yourself on others.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 19, 2014 3:44 PM
Comment #378474

Weary Willie-
I’m under the impression that you can’t discriminate against people based on political beliefs. Now if they start being disruptive about it, or if they break some sort of contract agreement, that’s different.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 19, 2014 3:48 PM
Comment #378475

First, quit this immature BS about the constitution. I hear it, and all I can think is that you don’t have the first clue about what I believe.

Second, those mandates are perfectly sound: the states have the option to forgo federal funds for the same of taking a different position.

Third, the Ninth Amendment only comes into play under certain circumstances. Interstate commerce, waterways between multiple states and other such matters already fall under Federal authority.

Fourth, that you don’t agree with a law doesn’t invalidate the constitutional proscription against cruel and unusual punishment.

Fifth, You’ve got the completely wrong amendment to complain about double jeopardy in, that’s the Fifth Amendment, and then the issue is, is it the same crime if a person is charged for a federal crime, where they are found not guilty (there is no innocent plea in our system, just not guilty) for a state crime? I agree there might be issues there, but I think the Federal government reserves the right to charge people within its jurisdiction if they’ve got probable cause to believe a federal crime has been committed.

Sixth? It might challenge our rights under that amendment for the government to have done what it’s done during these last few years, but that doesn’t make the amendment moot. Getting our government to live according to constitutional principles has never been easy or simple.

You seem to have this impression that it ought to just happen, but the whole point of our judicial branch is that the law has to be applied, and being applied, it must be interpreted.

It’s this Kid’s fantasy approach to the Constitution that has gotten us to this point, where people worry more about whether the framers would have made this interpretation, than whether that interpretation would be consistent with modern circumstances and a well-considered interpretation that allows us to consider what 200 years of experience tells us about how the rules actually play out.

As for the 17th and 16th Amendments? Let’s start with the principle that, according to the constitution, these are principles that might as well have been written into the original constitution. Then let’s go what the 17th Amendment deals with: about a hundred years worth of experience with political machines, where Senators were picked without a primary or general election, but instead by state legislators. The track record on that was horrific enough that the support for the change passed all the necessary two thirds and three fourths thresholds.

As for the 16th and the fifth? Having to file an income tax return is no more a violation of the fifth amendment than a requirement for appraisal by a county tax commissioner is. It’s a necessary and proper requirement for the government to carry out it’s taxing power when it comes to income.

Frankly, nowadays, I think you folks just run to the constitution in order to try and stifle political discussions. It’s tiresome to have people debate policy in such a sloppily pre-emptive manner. The Constitution doesn’t say half the stuff you folks think it says.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 19, 2014 4:35 PM
Comment #378479

Journalist Fired for Negative Obama Editorial

Johnson tweeted, “I just became the first person in the history of newspapers to be fired for writing a paper’s most-read article.”

Drew Johnson criticized Obama and, after his newspaper changed the policy, fired Johnson for his remarks stating the reason being he violated the new policy. They not only fired him for his political opinion, they had to change the policy before they could fire him.

Supreme Court Won’t Hear Appeal of Woman Fired by University for Criticizing Gay Rights Movement

In December 2012, a three-judge panel of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against Dixon, arguing that the university had a right to fire Dixon since her views were in conflict with the academic institution’s mission statement.

Chrystal Dixon didn’t think the struggle for gay equality should be equated with the struggle for black equality in the ‘60’s. She simply stated her opinion. She was fired for her political remarks by a university funded by the taxpayers.

Tell me, Stephen Daugherty, how is someone supposed to initiate change in policy if they are punished for elucidating a difference with that policy?

It also was the court, (part of the government) that would not protect Chrystal Dixon’s right to share her opinion.

Posted by: Weary Willie at May 19, 2014 5:03 PM
Comment #378482


You talk about the Constitution in reverent terms then blatantly ignore it when it come to the free speech clause.

There is no protection from private recrimination for expressions of opinions or ideas. There is only protection from government suppression of speech. You can say what you want but if your employer doesn’t like it, you can be fired. Period.

Despite numerous corrections on this matter, you persist in believing that Constitutional free speech means that you can say whatever you want without recrimination. You are wrong.

Posted by: Rich at May 19, 2014 6:12 PM
Comment #378483

Weary, Liberals want you to think the same way they do and they will use any means possible to get you to think as they do. You are sharing those examples here on F.B. Stephen is one person who write essays in the blue column doing exactly that, wanting everyone to think as he does and ridiculing you if you don’t.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at May 19, 2014 6:15 PM
Comment #378487

We’ve gone from, “It’s illegal to yell fire in a theater!” to “..but if your employer doesn’t like it you can be fired.”

If I was employed by a guy that sells fried chicken and I stood behind his counter telling his customers his chicken sucks, then I can see where I could be fired.

If I was employed by a guy that sells fried chicken and I’m sitting at home on my off-hours writing on WatchBlog and I say “OMG” and “Horrible” when I see a photo of 2 guys with cream on their faces kissing each other on national tv I would expect my government to protect my right to do so. It’s call the right to free speech. My comments have nothing to do with fried chicken, my employment, my employer, or his customers. If my employer fires me for that I should be able to retaliate in a court of law for an unlawful termination and I should expect the court to respect my first amendment right.

To claim I am discriminating against gay people for saying “OMG” and “Horrible” is preposterous and the law should recognize that. There was no harm done. It was simply an opinion.

We should have a government that protect the constitution, not a government that protects thin-skinned, political cry babies who want instant gratification for every perceived slight against their lifestyles.

I would love to go through life without being criticized. I would be the most egotistical person on the planet. I would be so full of myself I wouldn’t fit in my pants. But it’s just not possible. I’m going to have faults found of me by anyone and everyone. I’m human. I’m different. I can’t please everyone and everyone won’t please me.

The difference between me and these selfish political groups is I can see when someone is truly annoyed with me. I don’t force them to like me, I just stay away from them. It’s better for both of us.

Posted by: Weary Willie at May 19, 2014 7:40 PM
Comment #378489

“We should have a government that protect the constitution, not a government that protects thin-skinned, political cry babies who want instant gratification for every perceived slight against their lifestyles.”


The cases you cite don’t involve the government. There is no governmental involvement in those cases. There is no Constitutional issue.

By the way, it isn’t just liberals using public opinion to pressure a business to discipline an employee for stating an opinion contrary to their liking. The Miami Marlins manager, Ozzie Gillem, was suspended for telling Time magazine he loves Castro and respects the retired Cuban leader for staying in power so long. The remarks outraged the conservative Cuban-American community resulting in his suspension by the Marlins.

Posted by: Rich at May 19, 2014 10:37 PM
Comment #378490


There is no point in arguing with fanatics. There is no connection in their minds to a reality other than the one inside their own head. A relevant example was the recent debate between Bill Nye and Bill Ham when Ham had to admit his position was not scientific but religious. Ham had no need for facts; there were no facts that could change his opinions and beliefs because he “knows” the “bible” is “perfect”. So if science shows the world isn’t what he believes the bible say it is, it’s the science that’s wrong. No argument, no facts, no logic will change that for him. To him and those like him, those who disagree with them are the ones who are evangelical and mindless because such single-mindedness is all they know. They can’t understand the liberal, or even rational, view because it doesn’t exist to them.

Posted by: Dave at May 19, 2014 10:52 PM
Comment #378491
Is that name-calling, j2t2? Yes, I believe it is name-calling. Liberals just can’t help themselves, can they?

You’re damn right it is Weary, and rightfully so. This guy you linked to didn’t mention one of the things you just did. He claimed “conservative free speech is banned in America”. He then goes on to site some stuff done by businesses, not one thing that shows us that conservatives have actually been banned from free speech. So he is either a liar or an idiot. I gave him the benefit and assumed he is an idiot.

Now on to your issues, did you notice you have completely skipped the issues raised by Wayne and yourself in the aforementioned article? He boldly proclaimed that some Americans were banned from free speech Weary! Shouldn’t such a false accusation be condemned? Shouldn’t the false messenger be condemned for allowing such a lack of journalistic integrity to assault/insult the reader/listener/viewer? Shouldn’t myths misinformation half truths and outright lies be shown for what they are?

Since the American people believe our constitution consists only of “the right to free speech” the government has to tread lightly when restricting it. A great way to infringe on the rights of citizens is to get other citizens to do it for them.

Weary, it is put up or shut up time. Show some proof that there is government involvement in the 2 instances Wayne Allen Root used to proclaim “conservative free speech is banned in America”. Show us or admit your conspiracy theory is rubbish.

Take for instance, the illegal search of a person by employers. Just get an insurance company to raise the rates of any employer who doesn’t do a mandatory drug search on a person and, wallah!, you have a legal violation of the forth amendment.

Once again Weary, show us the government is behind the insurance companies rate increase as a means to violate the 4th amendment. Your theorize without a whiff of proof. As you are a guy who favors privatization of government your theories are absolutely amazing. Such a contradiction IMHO.

Posted by: j2t2 at May 19, 2014 11:19 PM
Comment #378492

That’s simply not the case, Rich. The courts (that’s part of the government) have been allowing this behavior to flourish for years. There is an outright assault on the constitution and you know it.

Just ask anyone on the street. Ask anyone if the constitution will protect them.

Ask the fisherman what would happen if they told the game warden who wants to look in his cooler to get a warrant.

Ask the driver of a car what would happen if he objects to a cop taking his drug sniffing dog (police officer) through his car.

Ask the farmer who has a rat on his property what would happen if he plows that rat into the ground.

How many times have you heard about criminals taking their victims to court (that’s part of the government) for injuries they received while perpetrating their crime.

Businesses have signs on the premises stating, “We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone.” Not any longer! Courts (that’s part of the government) are telling businesses they have to provide objectionable services to anyone who demands them.

Do you think a court (that’s part of the government) would uphold Don Jones’ right to free speech if he chose to sue his employer? Or, would the court (that’s part of the government) bow to public pressure to have Don Jones punished for uttering two harmless words on a public forum?

It seems to be very easy to split up the government and the people into two separate entities to make excuses for the destruction of our constitution. That’s what they are, excuses.

The document starts out with “WE THE PEOPLE”! How can a Government of the people, by the people, for the people allow the people to be exempt from adhering to the basic tenets described in that document? If the people don’t have to adhere to the bill of rights then why have them at all?

But that’s the point, isn’t it? That’s the goal, isn’t it? Since the bill of rights isn’t working Harry Reid can “solve the problem” by amending the constitution to get rid of the bill of rights and save the country, right?

Drip. Drip. Drip.
Nedeep. Nedeep.

I think people should take a look at Russian history before and after their Bolshevik Revolution. They will see a number of parallels to what is happening in this country now.

Posted by: Weary Willie at May 19, 2014 11:55 PM
Comment #378493

j2t2, you better learn how to read. Do you see the question marks, j2t2? A question mark, a little curly thing with a dot below it, says it’s a question, an inquiry, a quest for knowledge, a function used to defeat ignorance. You really should read what’s on the page, not what you want to think is on the page so you can justify going off on a rant to yourself.

Who’s the idiot? Notice the question mark? It’s that little curly thing with the dot under it.

Posted by: Weary Willie at May 20, 2014 12:06 AM
Comment #378566

Weary, as I figured you are diverting the argument instead of answering the question. Face it Wayne Allen Root has led you astray using those silly examples as he tries to convince us it is the government behind the actions of these businesses. Not only that good old Wayne earned the disrespect I have shown for him when he asked the question “conservative free speech is banned in America” and proceeded to answer it (check the third sentence of his blathering).

SO one more time,show some proof that there is government involvement in the 2 instances Wayne Allen Root used to proclaim “conservative free speech is banned in America”. Show us or admit your conspiracy theory is rubbish

Posted by: j2t2 at May 20, 2014 7:47 AM
Comment #378567


When it comes to Constitutionally protected speech, the courts, if anything, have expanded such protections in modern times, particularly in the area of political speech. The recent ruling in Citizens United is but one example in a string of cases beginning with Buckley vs. Valero in which the Supreme Court has struck down Congressional political campaign reform limitations.

As for the courts and the 4th amendment, I would suggest that you direct your ire to conservative justices who over the course of the past few decades have steadily weakened such protections as well as conservatives in general for their relentless drum beat for law and order provisions at the expense of 4th amendment protections.

But, those issues are not really in question for the cases that you cite. The US Constitution has little to do with protections against private recriminations for speech. You can say whatever you want but the Constitution does not protect you from private recriminations (e.g., firing, etc.) only from government actions.

You may be right that suppression of speech by public opinion pressure or corporate action is a dangerous trend. But, such pressure is not a violation of free speech rights under the Constitution.

Both sides do it contrary to your assertions that it is uniquely a liberal phenomena. I grant you that it might be well for all parties to consider the spirit of the Constitution if not the letter and develop a thicker skin when it comes to expressions of contrary opinion. Just because you can punish a person for their opinion doesn’t mean that it is always the best option.

Posted by: Rich at May 20, 2014 8:26 AM
Comment #378568

Weary, I just think there is another player at the table, a third if you will, and that new player is “concensus think” which is neither dem nor repub. It nearly embarasses me as a Democrat, but it isn’t us on the left, it is another player that goes by roles of concensus think and how we deal with conflicts. It’s insane some of the things going on here but this is not democrat.

And yes Donald Sterling is going senile all the eartags are there—Magic got “the Aids” and “they” never give charitably etc. He’s a hookshot—man this is just how we die on this earth—completely bats in the belfry. My mother was way worse when she left she had no idea who I was or where she was. He doesn’t know where he is or with whom he’s speaking—he’s going if not gone already.

Posted by: simpleheaded at May 20, 2014 11:07 AM
Comment #378570

Progressive liberalism has been and will be successful. This country was founded by progressive liberals. How progressive and liberal was it to tell the Crown of England we will form our own country and will no longer be your subjects. Now that was progressive liberalism at some of it’s finest. Not only that, but this group of colonists not only stuck their collective thumb in the eye of the King of England but they also crafted and excellent document that was able to guide them and their posterity to successful governance for 230+ years. Quite an accomplishment and it is still being celebrated today by evidence of our way of life and its success. I understand the frustrations of the King of England what I don’t get is the frustrations of the Republicanics and Teapartyics (see I can misspell too). We were given a document that knowingly could be changed and has been changed to the betterment of not only those of us fortunate enough to live in this great country but the rest of the world stands in awe of that. Let’s all stick our collective thumbs in the eyes of Republicanics and Teapartyics in celebration of that.

Posted by: Speak4all at May 20, 2014 3:51 PM
Comment #378581

Man charged with desecrating flag

A Duncansville man says he was standing up for his American Indian heritage and expressing his beliefs when he hung an American flag upside down and spray painted it earlier this week, but police said what he did was inexcusable.
“I was offended by it when I first saw it,” Berg said. “I had an individual stop here at the station, a female who was in the military, and she was very offended by it.”

If this isn’t an example of thin-skinned, whiners getting their way by using the force of the government to punish people they disagree with, I don’t know what is!

Brubaker said. “It’s just not right and simply because I express myself in a way that somebody else doesn’t like or agree with doesn’t mean I should be persecuted for having beliefs.”

I’d like to know how you folks are going to explain this one away. This instance is exactly what I’m talking about. The person was arrested by the government for expressing an opinion. He was arrested for “offending” someone. He was arrested contrary to the supreme court’s striking down all such laws that existed saying they violated the person’s first amendment rights to speak freely.

Supreme Court Strikes Down All Laws Banning Flag Desecration (1989):

Outside the 1984 Republican National Convention in Dallas, Gregory Lee Johnson burned a flag in protest against President Ronald Reagan’s policies. He was arrested under Texas’ flag desecration statute. In its 5-4 ruling in Texas v. Johnson, the Supreme Court struck down flag desecration laws in 48 states by ruling that flag desecration is a constitutionally protected form of free speech.

And yet here they are, arresting someone for offending another. How are you going to explain this one away, folks?

Posted by: Weary Willie at May 21, 2014 7:23 AM
Comment #378582


I know I already said I’d stop responding to you but your last post is too perfect a hanging curveball. You claim that “conservative speech” is banned. Yet you choose as your evidence the act of arersting a flag desecrater, which is the exact opposite of conservative speech. Further, you are pointing out an illegal conservative response, one which will result in legal actions against Duncansville since, as you pointed out, the Supreme Court struck down flag desecration laws. This is exactly how a society with free speech would respond to an individual cops actions. You proved our point.

Posted by: Dave at May 21, 2014 8:01 AM
Comment #378583

This isn’t conservative or liberal behavour. This is facist behavour.

Posted by: Weary Willie at May 21, 2014 8:06 AM
Comment #378590

We can agree on that, I’m interested to know if you think the ACA is “fascist”. If so, how? And, what does your example have to do with “Is conservative free speech banned in America?”?

Posted by: Dave at May 21, 2014 12:02 PM
Comment #378598

What has the ACA to do with this, other than being called a racist if you don’t support it, I suppose?
Have you run out of argument?

Posted by: Weary Willie at May 21, 2014 4:16 PM
Comment #378600
The rationale is that the white man is God and created the universe, and is physically stronger and intellectually stronger and more righteous naturally. Blackness is weak and wicked and inferior, basically just an errant child who needs to be corrected.

Jay Z, part owner of the Brooklyn Nets wears an emblem of the Five Percenters around his neck in broad daylight, At a NBA Basketball game, no less!!! How can this be? How can this racist group be supported and promoted by an owner of a NBA team when he signed a contract that states he cannot act in a way that puts the NBA in a bad light?

Oh! Wait a minute! Did I say that right?

So what exactly do Five Percenters believe?
“The rationale is that the black man is God and created the universe, and is physically stronger and intellectually stronger and more righteous naturally,” says Michael Muhammad Knight, an author of two books on the radical group. “Whiteness is weak and wicked and inferior — basically just an errant child who needs to be corrected.”

Oh! Ok. I understand now. He can say it if it promotes black racism, not white racism. Only racist statements from white people are bad. Alrighty, then. Never mind.

Posted by: Weary Willie at May 21, 2014 4:58 PM
Comment #378616
This isn’t conservative or liberal behavour. This is facist behavour.

SO you began this thread with conservative misinformation, myths, half truths and outright lies by Wayne Allen Root attempting to smear liberals with some phony conjured up constitutional issues that serve to rile up the movement followers Weary.

Now we see your link to conservatives in power and their fascist behavior. It is like I have long said my friend there isn’t much difference between conservatism as practiced and fascism.

That is why it is important for all of us, conservatives included, to denounce the foolishness of the Wayne Allen Roots of the world.

Posted by: j2t2 at May 22, 2014 7:51 AM
Comment #378618

wea, Can you answer the question or not? Is the ACA fascist? Select Yes or No and I guarantee I will not call you a racist for that.

Posted by: Dave at May 22, 2014 9:03 AM
Comment #378636

j2t2, show me what you mean. I have yet to see a conservative punish someone for saying “OMG” or “horrible” when they see a cream smeared gay guy kiss another guy. Provide a link please.

I’ve never heard that, never seen that, never seen or heard anything remotely resembling a conservative punishing someone for saying OMG or Horrible when they see a guy with white cream smeared on his face kiss another guy on national tv. Never.

Dave, no one is talking about the ACA here. Why don’t you try to defend the hypocracy of JayZ supporting a racist group with impunity and Sterling talking to his girlfriend in the privacy of his own home getting stript of his assets and livelyhood.

Posted by: Weary Willie at May 22, 2014 5:41 PM
Comment #378643

Nice try (not)

Posted by: Dave at May 22, 2014 9:44 PM
Comment #378645


OK, I will bite. I don’t care if JayZ is kicked out of his ownership interest in an NBA team for expressing racist beliefs or opinions. He should be treated no differently than a white owner. Maybe it will be a wake up call for everybody. If the NBA wants its ownership to be free of racists, it needs to police all its ownership and not discriminate in its enforcement.

Posted by: Rich at May 22, 2014 10:07 PM
Comment #378646
j2t2, show me what you mean. I have yet to see a conservative punish someone for saying “OMG” or “horrible” when they see a cream smeared gay guy kiss another guy. Provide a link please.

I’m sure you haven’t Weary but so what? The issue is the outright lie told by Wayne Allen when he asked then answered the question “Is conservative free speech banned in America”. Between you and him the government became responsible for this “banning of conservative speech”, which perpetuates the misinformation and mythology created by conservatives that government is the root of all of our problems.

It is a business decision, so conservative free speech is not banned but subject to the whims of business owners and corporations like the NBA and the NFL. Personally I agree with Don Jones comment and find it to be no big deal but the powers that be in the NFL are afraid of losing a few bucks and prefer to hang Jones out to dry. Even so the government isn’t even a player in this game.

Now lets look at what conservatives employers choose to fire employees for and lets see you rant about how terrible it is.

Posted by: j2t2 at May 22, 2014 10:40 PM
Comment #378681

Patricia Kunkle, like the article says, will have to prove she was terminated for her political beliefs. The fact she was only employed for 6 months could suggest her seniority has something to do with it.

Chet Sadler wasn’t fired for voting for Obama. He was fired for it taking 6 hours to vote. That should be the focus of the story considering Chet Sadler was given his job back.

David, specifically said he didn’t fire people because they voted for Obama. He specifically said he fired people because of the taxes and regulations he would have to pay for because of Obama’s election. He let go 1/3 of his workforce to keep the doors open for the other 2/3.

You guys were right, j2t2! Elections do have consequences.

Now, j2t2, how many of these people got on the internet and said, “OMG” “Horrible”? Did they get fired for it?

Instead of consentrating on the employers ability to punish people for their opinion, how about consentrating on the hypocrisy that goes into the decision to fire someone for their opinion. For instance, JayZ can openly display emblems representing a racist group but Don Jones is punished for commenting on his objection to near pornographic displays of gay sex on national tv.

Posted by: Weary Willie at May 24, 2014 8:58 AM
Comment #378790
David, specifically said he didn’t fire people because they voted for Obama. He specifically said he fired people because of the taxes and regulations he would have to pay for because of Obama’s election.

And you believe him Weary? Fired after the law was in place for years before the reelection of Obama? The reality is this David is an example of whining by a sore loser? Especially since the tsunami he forecasted never came?

Now, j2t2, how many of these people got on the internet and said, “OMG” “Horrible”? Did they get fired for it?

I don’t know Weary but it does raise a couple of questions. Did Wayne Allen Root proclaim “free speech banned” when these guys were fired for their political beliefs? I also wonder how many of them proclaimed the loss of liberal free speech rights when they lost their job due to the antics of their employer.

Seems to me Wayne Allen Root is still an idiot that doesn’t understand what the constitution us about. The baseless accusations he made were silly attempts to rile the movement followers into believing conservatives were coming under attack by the government, which of course is the outright lie we can all agree needs to be exposed.

Posted by: j2t2 at May 25, 2014 8:14 AM
Comment #378791

It must be nice to be willfully ignorant.
You don’t believe him? That’s ignorance.

Taxes rising faster under Obama than under any other president

Obama Never Raised Taxes?

Middle-Class Backers Shocked Obama Raised Their Taxes

I also wonder how many of them proclaimed the loss of liberal free speech rights when they lost their job due to the antics of their employer.

Hypocrisy! liberal free speech rights! Are we catagorizing free speech now, j2t2? Good Enough For Thee, But Not For Me? Liberals can bitch when liberals claim a faux contrivance but when a conservative points it out he’s an idiot?!


Posted by: Weary Willie at May 25, 2014 9:37 AM
Comment #378792
It must be nice to be willfully ignorant. You don’t believe him? That’s ignorance.

Ignorance is believing this guy has no ulterior motive. The ACA was law during the first Obama term, waiting until the results of the election results of 2012 to fire people and then basing it upon the ACA seems to me to be a political firing.

Ignorance is linking to a guy who uses the drop in gasoline prices during the economic meltdown and the subsequent raise in gas prices as a tax increase(speaking of willful ignorance):

From “Obama Never Raised Taxes?”
“On the day Obama took office, gas prices were averaged around $1.77 a gallon. Today as I write this, the local station here in Texas has regular gasoline for $3.49 a gallon. By this measure, it costs me an extra $1.72 a gallon to drive the same route today than it did just three years ago. For someone that fills up a twenty-gallon gas tank once a week, this increase costs an extra $140 a month. If this isn’t a tax increase, albeit a hidden one, then I don’t know what is.”

And that is one of this authors more intelligent bits of myth, misinformation, half truths and outright lies Weary. Where do you find these guys? The doubling of gas prices back to pre economic meltdown levels has become a tax increase put in place by Obama! How misleading is that?

Wayne Allyn Root and Jeffery Max are the ones that are making the country more ignorant, IMHO Weary, yet you use Max as some kind of defense of David the job destroyer.

Hypocrisy! liberal free speech rights! Are we catagorizing free speech now, j2t2? Good Enough For Thee, But Not For Me? Liberals can bitch when liberals claim a faux contrivance but when a conservative points it out he’s an idiot?!

Weary not hypocrisy just pointing out how silly the “Is there free speech left in America…if you’re a conservative or Christian?” comment in WAR’s article actually is. Where was Root and others when these people lost their job for voting for a liberal? The simple fact is we all lose when any rights are lost, Weary, there is no persecution of Christians or conservatives by the government as is implied by Root and many others on the right.

BTW Root isn’t an idiot because he wrote an article based upon “faux contrivance”, hell he writes for “Faux News” what else could we expect from him, but he is an idiot for blaming the government for the decisions of the businesses that reprimanded/fired these people for comments they made. He uses the constitution yet doesn’t seem to realize the constitution is protection against the government hindering free speech rights amongst other rights established in the constitution.

Look Weary, lets quit going off on these tangents you seem to want to take and lets come to terms on the crux of the issue. Wayne Allyn Root used misinformation and outright lies to misled his readers. Why on earth would you defend this type of propaganda?

Posted by: j2t2 at May 25, 2014 11:22 AM
Comment #380344

2014 comes,in order to thank everyone, characteristic, novel style,varieties, low price and good quality,and the low sale price.Thank everyone Welcome to ==== ==
Air Jordan (1-24) shoes $35
Jordan (1-22)&2014 shoes $45
Nike shox (R4, NZ, OZ, TL1, TL2, TL3) $35
Handbags ( Coach Lv fendi D&G) $30
T-shirts (polo, ed hardy, lacoste) $14
Jean (True Religion, ed hardy, coogi)$34
Sunglasses ( Oakey, coach, Gucci, Armaini)$15
New era cap $16
Biki ni (Ed hardy, polo) $18

===( )===

===( )===

===( )===

===( )===

===( )===

===( )===
This is a shopping paradise
We need your support and trust

Posted by: futyrt at June 30, 2014 1:35 PM
Post a comment