New Zealand all because they passed hate speech laws

[roadmaster]

You warn them and all because they listened to others saying, that hate speech we have to protect them now it applies to the Muslims too. They claimed no it won't happen we are free here. Wow how is that working out for you?

[Cotton1]

No hate speech? WTH do they talk about then ?

[stjames1_53]

Notice how so many times hate speech laws are applied to conservatives, but not to the ones stirring up the hate?
But it's too late here. We've already got a "House" full trying to pass laws that silence the conservatives in this country.
Liberals will tell you to STFU while screaming at you. We've got a couple in here.

[midcan5]

Slippery slope BS is so tiring. Hunters don't use automatic or semi automatic rifles, get real. The sky is aways falling for some people. Resentment of government must be a genetic component of conservatives with the exception of controlling a woman's birth decisions.


http://polaris.gseis.ucla.edu/pagre/conservatism.html


"But you say you are conservative - eminently conservative - while we are revolutionary, destructive, or something of the sort. What is conservatism? Is it not adherence to the old and tried, against the new and untried? We stick to, contend for, the identical old policy on the point in controversy which was adopted by "our fathers who framed the Government under which we live;" while you with one accord reject, and scout, and spit upon that old policy, and insist upon substituting something new. True, you disagree among yourselves as to what that substitute shall be. You are divided on new propositions and plans, but you are unanimous in rejecting and denouncing the old policy of the fathers. Some of you are for reviving the foreign slave trade; some for a Congressional Slave-Code for the Territories; some for Congress forbidding the Territories to prohibit Slavery within their limits; some for maintaining Slavery in the Territories through the judiciary; some for the "gur-reat pur-rinciple" that "if one man would enslave another, no third man should object," fantastically called "Popular Sovereignty;" but never a man among you is in favor of federal prohibition of slavery in federal territories, according to the practice of "our fathers who framed the Government under which we live." Not one of all your various plans can show a precedent or an advocate in the century within which our Government originated. Consider, then, whether your claim of conservatism for yourselves, and your charge or destructiveness against us, are based on the most clear and stable foundations." Abraham Lincoln http://showcase.netins.net/web/creat...hes/cooper.htm

[stjames1_53]

Slippery slope BS is so tiring. Hunters don't use automatic or semi automatic rifles, get real. The sky is aways falling for some people. Resentment of government must be a genetic component of conservatives with the exception of controlling a woman's birth decisions.


http://polaris.gseis.ucla.edu/pagre/conservatism.html


"But you say you are conservative - eminently conservative - while we are revolutionary, destructive, or something of the sort. What is conservatism? Is it not adherence to the old and tried, against the new and untried? We stick to, contend for, the identical old policy on the point in controversy which was adopted by "our fathers who framed the Government under which we live;" while you with one accord reject, and scout, and spit upon that old policy, and insist upon substituting something new. True, you disagree among yourselves as to what that substitute shall be. You are divided on new propositions and plans, but you are unanimous in rejecting and denouncing the old policy of the fathers. Some of you are for reviving the foreign slave trade; some for a Congressional Slave-Code for the Territories; some for Congress forbidding the Territories to prohibit Slavery within their limits; some for maintaining Slavery in the Territories through the judiciary; some for the "gur-reat pur-rinciple" that "if one man would enslave another, no third man should object," fantastically called "Popular Sovereignty;" but never a man among you is in favor of federal prohibition of slavery in federal territories, according to the practice of "our fathers who framed the Government under which we live." Not one of all your various plans can show a precedent or an advocate in the century within which our Government originated. Consider, then, whether your claim of conservatism for yourselves, and your charge or destructiveness against us, are based on the most clear and stable foundations." Abraham Lincoln http://showcase.netins.net/web/creat...hes/cooper.htm

your usual tripe........


"Our
main agenda is to have all guns banned. We must use whatever means possible. It
doesn't matter if you have to distort the facts or even lie. Our task of
creating a socialist America can only succeed when those who would resist us
have been totally disarmed."

Sara Brady

Chairman, Handgun Control Inc, to Senator Howard Metzenbaum

The National Educator, January 1994, Page 3.

[DGUtley]

1. Slippery slope is a fair and legitimate argument. We've seen it time and time again.
2. Twitter can do whatever it likes, it's a private entity - subject to the issue of monopoly laws (which I haven't fully considered yet). Same goes to FB.
3. I am against hate speech laws -- unless, of course, I get to determine what is and isn't hate speech. I am for freedom of speech.

[Peter1469]

Slippery slope BS is so tiring. Hunters don't use automatic or semi automatic rifles, get real. The sky is aways falling for some people. Resentment of government must be a genetic component of conservatives with the exception of controlling a woman's birth decisions.


http://polaris.gseis.ucla.edu/pagre/conservatism.html


"But you say you are conservative - eminently conservative - while we are revolutionary, destructive, or something of the sort. What is conservatism? Is it not adherence to the old and tried, against the new and untried? We stick to, contend for, the identical old policy on the point in controversy which was adopted by "our fathers who framed the Government under which we live;" while you with one accord reject, and scout, and spit upon that old policy, and insist upon substituting something new. True, you disagree among yourselves as to what that substitute shall be. You are divided on new propositions and plans, but you are unanimous in rejecting and denouncing the old policy of the fathers. Some of you are for reviving the foreign slave trade; some for a Congressional Slave-Code for the Territories; some for Congress forbidding the Territories to prohibit Slavery within their limits; some for maintaining Slavery in the Territories through the judiciary; some for the "gur-reat pur-rinciple" that "if one man would enslave another, no third man should object," fantastically called "Popular Sovereignty;" but never a man among you is in favor of federal prohibition of slavery in federal territories, according to the practice of "our fathers who framed the Government under which we live." Not one of all your various plans can show a precedent or an advocate in the century within which our Government originated. Consider, then, whether your claim of conservatism for yourselves, and your charge or destructiveness against us, are based on the most clear and stable foundations." Abraham Lincoln http://showcase.netins.net/web/creat...hes/cooper.htm

There is enough of the hard left that stands with Americans on our 2nd Amendment Rights.

Does that disappoint you?