More deaths in the name of religion

[Shiranu]

You can go move to some shitty Middle Eastern country if you don't like free speech.

Or more "free" counties with higher human rights ratings, as well as standard of living and quality of life ratings, that are harsh on hate speech.

It's almost like absolute freedom of speech isn't a necessity for a free and happy society.

[FaithIsFilth]

Why is 'free speech' considered to be free of responsibility?  It never has been.  You may be free to holler fire in a theater, but you will not be free of the legal responsibility to do so.  I am 'free' to say many things.  But my hearers are also free to return the favor.  'Hate speech' is not free speech.  It is illegal.  I love free speech--and despise hate speech.  Trump engages in hate speech--but gets away with it.

Trump went too far by talking about protesters getting beat up. He did not go too far when talking about Muslims or Mexicans (personally I really dislike what he's said about Muslims and Mexicans, but that's beside the point). No amount of slit throats will change my mind. I'll take the slit throats and free speech over no slit throats and no free speech. I appreciate the sacrifice of those getting their throats slit.

[FaithIsFilth]

Or more "free" counties with higher human rights ratings, as well as standard of living and quality of life ratings, that are harsh on hate speech.

It's almost like absolute freedom of speech isn't a necessity for a free and happy society.

I don't see people as truly free if they aren't allowed to speak their minds.

[Mike Cl]

Trump went too far by talking about protesters getting beat up. He did not go too far when talking about Muslims or Mexicans (personally I really dislike what he's said about Muslims and Mexicans, but that's beside the point). No amount of slit throats will change my mind. I'll take the slit throats and free speech over no slit throats and no free speech. I appreciate the sacrifice of those getting their throats slit.

That's good.  My main point being, not slit throats, but holding people--especially our 'leaders' , responsible for what they say.  They are free to say what they legally want--we are free to legally respond.  Drump should be about raising the bar of responsibility, not tearing it down. 

[Baruch]

I don't see people as truly free if they aren't allowed to speak their minds.

You are always free ... to obey the SJW fascists.

[Baruch]

I don't see people as truly free if they aren't allowed to speak their minds.

You aren't free, no matter what you do.  The laws of matter don't change because life is unfair.  In fact the law of nature is ... those who can benefit from unfairness do, and often promote greater unfairness.  Tooth and claw ... either scratch, bite or be cat food.

[Baruch]

And somehow we are now blaming Bill Clinton, which is fine because free speech technically includes irrelevant speech along with wild and reaching exaggeration.  And those are not against the law either.  I think we should put our foot down once and for all.  Just make being illogical a crime, and be done with all of this shit.

Some people here would support a Dem, if they shoved people alive into ovens.  Others would oppose Reps, if they raised people from the dead.  Neither will happen, it is a rhetorical point.  This whole post (and most others) are rhetorical points to be won or lost.  Engarde!

[Baruch]

That's good.  My main point being, not slit throats, but holding people--especially our 'leaders' , responsible for what they say.  They are free to say what they legally want--we are free to legally respond.  Drump should be about raising the bar of responsibility, not tearing it down.

You must be very disappointed with Obama too ;-)

[Mike Cl]

You must be very disappointed with Obama too ;-)

Nope--not so much.

[FaithIsFilth]

That's good.  My main point being, not slit throats, but holding people--especially our 'leaders' , responsible for what they say.  They are free to say what they legally want--we are free to legally respond.  Drump should be about raising the bar of responsibility, not tearing it down. 

I think the guy I responded to was saying that Trump should be charged with a crime. You hold Trump responsible by having people vote him out of office in 2020 or don't vote him in in the first place (problem is though, his anti-Muslim and anti-Mexican rhetoric seems to have won over Muslims and Mexican-Americans. Maybe they respect Trump's "strength" and don't like their fellow Muslims and Mexicans as much as we think they do. Trump is the People's Champion. Got way more Muslim, hispanic, and black votes than Romney and others) not by doing away with free speech, which I think is what he was suggesting. I support the right to free speech and that means people are entitled to say things a thousand times worse than what Trump has said about Muslims and Mexicans.

[FaithIsFilth]

You aren't free, no matter what you do.  The laws of matter don't change because life is unfair.  In fact the law of nature is ... those who can benefit from unfairness do, and often promote greater unfairness.  Tooth than claw ... either scratch, bite or be cat food.

I know. Americans are not really free. You can go to jail for pot. You don't have the legal right to take your own life, etc.

[Unbeliever]

Getting back at the terrorists by murdering civilians.  That'll teach 'em.

Getting back at the terrorists by becoming one...that'll teach 'em!

[Baruch]

Getting back at the terrorists by becoming one...that'll teach 'em!

Who's on first, What's on second ...

The first government authorized terror, was by General George Washington, against Portsmouth England (British naval port) ... the British stopped the terrorist (arsonist) before he got very far.

[Unbeliever]

I seriously doubt that the first government organized terror happened as recently as the American Revolution. I mean, there's a hell of a lot of history you're disregarding to make such a claim.

[Mike Cl]

I seriously doubt that the first government organized terror happened as recently as the American Revolution. I mean, there's a hell of a lot of history you're disregarding to make such a claim.

I think he was referring to the first by our govt.  Which means it was even before we had an actual govt.  I haven researched that, but it sounds reasonable.

But I do think the term 'terror attack' or 'terrorism' is so overused as to be meaningless any more.  I dare say that terror has been a weapon from the beginning of human time.  It is pretty easy to see that if your enemy is terrorized it is pretty easy meat.  Terror must be the oldest human weapon--even older than stones.