as opposed to progressives’ Orwellian interpretations
Shiny mirror there, motherfucker.
10/28/2012 3:57:20 PM
Nice to see one finally admit that that what they really want is a one-party state. (Cos that's what 'disenfranchisement' means). Nothing 'Orwellian' about that, no sir.
10/28/2012 3:57:58 PM
Filin De Blanc
"We need to work out how to take away all the liberties of these damn anti-liberty people!"
10/28/2012 4:02:57 PM
Rabbit of Caerbannog
Freedom is slavery!
10/28/2012 4:37:12 PM
Holy fucking shit. How in the hell is it even possible to reach these (il)logical conclusions? It requires a SHITLOAD of doublethink and mental gymnastics beyond what the average human brain is capable of.
10/28/2012 4:39:44 PM
"If they had, it is likely that their modus operandi would be similar to that for any faction found guilty of high crimes. Trials for treason and the requisite sentences would apply, and I would have no qualms about seeing such sentences executed, no matter how severe." ~ Joseph Stalin.
10/28/2012 4:57:58 PM
The Crimson Ghost
Stop trying to use big fancy words to sound smart.
Go drink some bleach; or better yet, a bottle of aftershock.
10/28/2012 5:06:04 PM
Earth to Eric, earth to Eric. The Declaration of Independence is not a government document and has no legal standing.
It is a textual masterpiece but is essentially a masterful stroke of propaganda. By blaming the King rather than Parliament it splintered public sentiment in the UK. By establishing a justification for rebellion it gaves European powers which might consider getting involved justification.
Like I said, a masterful stroke of propaganda but of no legal standing.
10/28/2012 5:33:06 PM
Why are you so afraid of what progressives have to say, Eric? We're not afraid to let you talk. It helps show that you're an idiot.
10/28/2012 6:06:42 PM
If you cannot defend your position against mere words without resorting to violence, which is what you are advocating, then your position is fucking hopeless.
10/28/2012 6:18:40 PM
Those whose speech and actions impinge upon the God-given rights set forth in the Declaration of Independence and codified in the Constitution are, by definition, excepted from protection under the First Amendment (as well as the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment).
Sure ... there are plenty of things excepted from First Amendment protection: If someone defrauds you, engages in false advertising, councils you to commit a crime, threatens you with harm or slanders you, that's not protected by the First Amendment. On the other hand, if someone just hurts your feelings or disagrees with your politics, that is protected. Neither the Constitution nor the Declaration of Independence say you have a God-given right not to be pissed off by liberals.
10/28/2012 6:22:28 PM
So liberals are trying to take away your liberties?
Do you know the meanings of these words, Erik?
10/28/2012 6:24:36 PM
So in other words, you think that people have too many freedoms and they need to have some taken away?
Guess what? Freedom of the press means that people get to print stuff that you disagree with without you persecuting them. That's why the First Amendment was written, to protect people from idiots like you.
10/28/2012 7:24:39 PM
Wow...there's just SO much wrong (just from a factual perspective alone) here that it's dumbfounding.
"It is improbable that the framers of the Constitution anticipated a situation in which the press were entirely given over to seditious, anti-American policies"
No, that's actually exactly what they intended to protect.
"Those whose speech and actions impinge upon the God-given rights set forth in the Declaration of Independence and codified in the Constitution are, by definition, excepted from protection under the First Amendment (as well as the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment)"
(1) The rights of U.S. citizens WEREN'T put forth in the Declaration of Independence.
(2) The rights granted by the U.S. Constitution AREN'T universally suspended for ANY speech, and few actions (excepting those for which capital punishment is a possible punishment upon conviction), and are ONLY curtailed or deprived after a trail and for just purpose--i.e. liberty is deprived of SOME conducts, not as an end unto itself (i.e. as retribution), but rather for the purposes of incarceration.
"If these truths can be acknowledged and widely accepted as such (as opposed to progressives’ Orwellian interpretations), then the political disenfranchisement of liberals, progressives, socialists and Marxists can begin in earnest, and in the open."
Well aren't you just a good little goosestepping fascist--I find it SO ironic that these imbeciles who wrap themselves in the flag are simultaneously the people spouting the most fascist un-American garbage of anyone in the country. It would be funny, IF they weren't so damn numerous and serious--as it is, these people VOTE, and are DANGEROUS.
10/28/2012 7:52:34 PM
It boggles my mind that someone actually paid Mr. Rush money to write this pile of shit.
10/28/2012 8:16:46 PM
Holy shit! This idiocy is new. I've heard people say that the First Amendment was intended only to apply to political dissent, and that offensive speech should not be free, but to say the exact opposite...
What, do you think the founding fathers were retarded or something, Erik? You think the fact that enacting a law giving anyone the right to say anything, no matter how much they disagreed and were offended, would allow people to oppose them politically was somehow lost on them? Give them at least some credit, even a 3yo could spot that one a light year off.
Also, those who oppose any part of the Constitution, or whatver other document you like but haven't read, aren't protected by it?
I guess it's time to unload some cruel and unusual on the Freepers then, since they consistently support discrimination, censorship, war crimes and attacks on individual liberty.
10/28/2012 8:32:43 PM
Whoa whoa whoa... Hold the fuckin' phone: You're advocating the revocation of first amendment rights and criminal prosecution on any media outlet whose politics you disagree with, and you have the sheer fucking audacity to then describe LIBERALS as Orwellian?
Doublethink at it's finest!
10/28/2012 9:43:19 PM
If Freedom of Speech has caveats, then it's not Freedom of Speech anymore.
Is it that hard to understand?
10/28/2012 11:15:28 PM
What a doubleplusgood idea!
10/29/2012 1:10:26 AM
10/29/2012 2:29:52 AM
Your inane babbling reminds me of communist dictators trying rail up a mob against those who they consider revisionists or counter-revolutionairies. Well, all totalitarian ideologies have the same patterns.
10/29/2012 3:52:28 AM
You know, it's rare that any of the fascists are THIS honest and open about their ultimate intentions. A little refreshing, even.
Edit: Most of the comments in the thread consist of people taking him to task about this. And on WND, no less. Barring a couple of people taking the piss, and one or two solitary neo-fascist assholes in the bunch, they think he's a fucking crazy as we do.
10/29/2012 4:06:14 AM
It is improbable that the framers of the Constitution anticipated a situation in which the theists were entirely given over to seditious, anti-American policies. If they had, it is likely that their modus operandi would be similar to that for any faction found guilty of high crimes. Trials for treason and the requisite sentences would apply, and I would have no qualms about seeing such sentences executed, no matter how severe.
10/29/2012 5:26:21 AM
Fundies Make Me Sick
Name one instance where the mainstream media has engaged in any conduct that could be construed as "high crimes and misdemeanors" and I'll be more inclined to take this rant seriously.
10/29/2012 8:34:26 AM
@ Fundies Make Me Sick
They think that Clinton lying about getting a BJ constitutes "high crimes and misdemeanors"
10/29/2012 9:03:47 AM