Posted on 08/13/2002 9:40:24 PM PDT by Luis Gonzalez
Buckley.....SCOTUS...
Sorry Hugh, you lose again.
Either (a) that was a stupid, pointless, and irrelevant question, or (b) you're getting Alzheimers.
Yes, it IS what you said.
Hillary Clinton should be silenced along with her former first husband. Do you disagree?
Yes. There's this little thing called "the Constitution" that forbids same. We the People cannot silence someone--they still have the right to speak, no matter what we do. To "silence" someone is to forcibly prevent them from speaking.
Now, us not being Congress, we have the liberty to devise legal ways to silence and inactivate her, like making sure she doesn't win in New York in 2006, and/or getting back the Senate.
OK, you're also too stupid to understand what you actually said--to silence someone is to forcibly prevent them from speaking, not to get them bounced out of office in an election.
I sort of agree with Rush, however, on silencing - we should always keep Ted Kennedy around, letting him prattle liberal pabulum, after we've victoriously squelched the opposition, just to remind ourselves how mindless they are.
Well, at least you gave yourself an out for why you should not be silenced on FR...
Any of you Republicans ever hear Rush say that our enemies must be DEFEATED, and that you can't reason with hardcore liberals?
Yes.
Are you familiar with his remark that "words mean things?"
Well, what's the difference between "defeated" and "silenced"?
"Defeated" means that their efforts to run for office or to influence legislation are unsuccessful.
"Silenced" means that they are forcibly prevented from speaking.
If this post did not make it clear enough for you, you should sign up for a round of Subject A at your local community college.
I thought you might have a reaction to that statement.
Hillary's List of Terrorists to Be Silenced or Politically Inactivated Under H.Akston's Interpretation Of the Constitution:
1) Christian Militias
2) Pro-Lifers
3) The NRA
4) Home Schoolers
5) FReepers
To be continued...
I stopped reading there, because you're being intellectually dishonest. To silence doesn't necessarily require the use of force. I like definition number 3.
silence
1 : to compel or reduce to silence : STILL
2 : to restrain from expression : SUPPRESS
3 : to cause to cease hostile firing or criticism
- Webster's
There's lots more ways to cause to cease hostile firing or criticism besides the way Hillary did Vince Foster.
I like shaming wrong people into silence. It often keeps them from doing damage to life liberty and property, with their whacko ideas. What's your reason for trying to shut certain people up?
I'm terrorizing your definition of the Constitution, which is a definition that embraces, aides and comforts terrorists, so I can understand why you, in your upside down world, would think I'm a constitutional terrorist.
The Constitution was established to secure the blessings of liberty to people of the United States.
I don't give an airborne fornication what definition you like; it still involves some aspect of force.
There's lots more ways to cause to cease hostile firing or criticism besides the way Hillary did Vince Foster.
Yeah. There's how old Stalin dealt with critics, too.
I like shaming wrong people into silence.
That only works on those who actually have the capacity to feel shame, bubba.
It often keeps them from doing damage to life liberty and property, with their whacko ideas.
Too bad it doesn't work on you, huh?
What's your reason for trying to shut certain people up?
Well, when they advocate insurrection by the armed forces, or extraconstitutional force against political enemies, or armed revolt, they've kinda wandered away from the ideals of Free Republic. Those who are merely misguided fools (like you) get a pass. The ones actively advocating armed revolt and the like get abuse reported.
Excrement. Persuasion is not force.
"Words mean things," as Rush puts it.
Well, when they advocate insurrection by the armed forces, or extraconstitutional force against political enemies, or armed revolt, they've kinda wandered away from the ideals of Free Republic. Those who are merely misguided fools (like you) get a pass. The ones actively advocating armed revolt and the like get abuse reported.
Well look at this.
You admit you try to shut people up who don't 'live up to the ideals (as if you are the definer of them!) of free republic', which you define as advocating mayhem and armed violence (essentially things harmful to life liberty and property), and criticize me for saying that my goal is to silence wrong people whose ideas are dangerous to life liberty and property. I think you'd sooner silence someone than I would!
(be careful though, because Patrick Henry advocated "armed revolt". I don't think you really thought your above statement through)
And I'm the hypocrit?!
When one advocates that foreign terrorists on US soil should have IVth Amendment rights to be secure in their effects (like Luis Gonzalez advocates), one "advocates insurrection by the terrorist's armed forces, and extraconstitutional force against political enemies of the US, and armed revolt."
It was quite an aid and comfort to Zacharias, knowing that his computer was secure. Look at all the life, and property that was probably lost because someone thought they needed a warrant to search his computer. We'll never know for sure what was on it. I just hope for people like Luis' sake there wasn't a chance to get the jump on the jihadies that was blocked by a wrong interpretation of the Constitution.
Treason is defined as giving aid and comfort to the enemies of the United States. I'll give you and Luis a pass, because I think you haven't thought this through. That's what my purpose is. To get you to think this through, and to silence your wrongness.
I don't silence them anywhere beyond the boundaries of Free Republic. They are perfectly free to post their drivel elsewhere.
(be careful though, because Patrick Henry advocated "armed revolt". I don't think you really thought your above statement through)
I have thought it through--you most assuredly haven't. If you think that America is facing a situation paralleling that of Patrick Henry, then you have no business posting on FR.
And I'm the hypocrit?!
No, you're simply a fool.
When one advocates that foreign terrorists on US soil should have IVth Amendment rights to be secure in their effects (like Luis Gonzalez advocates), one "advocates insurrection by the terrorist's armed forces, and extraconstitutional force against political enemies of the US, and armed revolt."
I suggest you read A Man For All Seasons, or watch the excellent movie made of it.
Would you, like Roper, cut down every law in America to get at the Devil? If you did, and the Devil turned round on you, where would you shelter?
It was quite an aid and comfort to Zacharias, knowing that his computer was secure. Look at all the life, and property that was probably lost because someone thought they needed a warrant to search his computer.
Look at all the life that would be lost after the appellate courts had thrown out the evidence because of your wrong interpretation of the Constitution, and the would-be hijackers walked.
We'll never know for sure what was on it. I just hope for people like Luis' sake there wasn't a chance to get the jump on the jihadies that was blocked by a wrong interpretation of the Constitution.
Your interpretation of the Constitution has been rejected since Day One of the Republic.
Treason is defined as giving aid and comfort to the enemies of the United States. I'll give you and Luis a pass, because I think you haven't thought this through. That's what my purpose is. To get you to think this through, and to silence your wrongness.
You will fail. First, you will fail because I am not wrong, you are. Second, because you can only silence me through the application of physical violence against my person. You don't want to go there, unless you wish to commit suicide by former Marine.
Look at all the life that would be lost after the appellate courts had thrown out the evidence because of your wrong interpretation of the Constitution, and the would-be hijackers walked.
You don't understand. It would never have gotten to court. The FBI could have secretly used the info that they secretly obtained about his buddy Atta, to get him and his phony visa the hell out of the country. Who said anything about evidence for court? Their mission could have been thwarted simply by getting them out of the country. Or, they could have denied his visa, and followed him around the world, while he led them to the other cells. Think of the intelligence that was thrown away, just because some do-gooder thinks that the Constitution was established to secure the blessings of liberty to any non-citizen who manages to slip inside the country, legally or not.
Don't be such a hypocritical fool.
I have respect for you going on the radio and espousing republican principles. That proves I'm not a mensa :)
Because they believe it's better to be right, than elected.
We've got to figure out a way to make the two synonymous.
Either provide a link to the post where I made that statement, retract and apologize, or stand in front of anyone who reads this exposed as a godamned liar.
And I will make sure lots of people know that you are a liar.
That's a lie, I gave you the name of the case where the SCOTUS defined who is, and who isn't covered by the Bill of Rights and the US Constitution. The fact that you didn't bother doing the most minimal research, proves the point that you are an intellectually dishonest debater, and lazy to boot.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.